What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

The assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority with a delay of 152 days. The application for condonation of delay was not found, and the appeal was dismissed in limine without the assessee being given an opportunity to explain the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed solely on the ground of delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay.

Jai Kissan Foods, Kashipur vs Ward-2(2)(1) Kashi Pur, Kashipur | ITAT Varanasi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Hearing: 24.06.2026

ITA No.213/DDN/2026 JAI KISSAN FOODS, KASHIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.213/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2024-25 JAI KISSAN FOODS, Vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), Village Nijhra, Udham Singh Nagar, KASHIPUR, Kashipur, Uttarakhand 244713. Uttarakhand 244713. PAN No. AAOFJ0629G Appellant Respondent

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Date of hearing: 24.06.2026 Pronouncement on 03.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 24.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai. In this case, it is seen that there was a delay of 152 days in the filing of appeal before the first appellate authority, which was not condoned and the appeal has been dismissed in limine.

ITA No.213/DDN/2026 JAI KISSAN FOODS, KASHIPUR 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.

2.1 The Ld. DR brought to our notice the reason given by the assessee for the delay in filing of first appeal as per the impugned order: -

"Respected Mam Sir We are apologetic for delay in submission of appeal application before the authorities Our application for condonation of delay is enclosed Kindly accept our condonation application and abide We seek an opportunity to present our case and supporting documents before the relevant authorities to seek remedy against outstanding demand in our case Condonation application is enclosed." 4.3 On perusal of the Form 35, it is seen that the appellant has itself accepted that there is delay in filing appeal days. The appellant has stated that application for condonation of delay is enclosed with Form 35 but the same has not found. Vide notices u/s 250 of the Act, the appellant was specifically asked to furnish the application for condonation of delay for late filling of appeal along with reason for delay and documentary evidence. But the appellant has not submitted any application for the condonation for delay in filing appeal.” Thereafter, the Ld. DR relied on the finding given in the impugned order.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not given any opportunity to the assessee for explaining the reasons for delay. We are also aware of the fact that judicial forums are meant to dispense justice and not be bogged down by considerations of delay and other technicalities beyond a certain reasonable point. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file

ITA No.213/DDN/2026 JAI KISSAN FOODS, KASHIPUR of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), after condoning the delay before him, and directing that the appeal must be decided on merits.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

JAI KISSAN FOODS,KASHIPUR vs. WARD-2(2)(1) KASHI PUR, KASHIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments