What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding all grounds of appeal and without providing a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 150 days, citing non-service of the impugned order on their registered email. The Assessing Officer passed an order, which was upheld by the CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte in violation of natural justice and if all grounds of appeal were decided on merits.

Anju Saha, Nadia vs I.T.O., Ward - 41(1), Nadia | s.143(3), 250 | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhyay, FCA

For Respondent: Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR

Hearing: 31.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2348/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anju Saha Vs. ITO Ward-41(1), Nadia K.N.C Road Station Road Krishnagar Nadia, West Bengal-741101 [PAN: DLGPS4062E] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Palas Chattopadhyay, FCA Respondent by : Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 31.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 13.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

There is a delay of 150 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay contending the order impugned have not been served upon the Assessee on the registered e-mail ID. Therefore, the Appeal could not be filed on time.

ITA No.2348/Kol/2026 Anju Saha; A.Y.: 2017-18 3. The Ld. AR reiterating the averments made in the Application, sought for condoning the delay in filing the captioned Appeal.

The Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the captioned Appeal on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 150 days in filing the present Appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2019 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders dated 29.12.2019, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13.11.2025, dismissed both the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13.11.2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

ITA No.2348/Kol/2026 Anju Saha; A.Y.: 2017-18 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee could not make proper compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in the first Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the ex-parte order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not filed any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) even after providing sufficient opportunity, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly passed the order impugned, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the order impugned has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Page | 3

ITA No.2348/Kol/2026 Anju Saha; A.Y.: 2017-18 10. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

ANJU SAHA,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(1), NADIA

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