SANJEEV DAS,WILLIAM NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-GOALPARA, GOALPARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 195/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 June 2026AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 1654 days without sufficient cause. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a neighbor not handing over departmental notices and documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation, and if so, whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, Guwahati (Through Virtual hearing at Kolkata) Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA No.195/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjeev Das……………………. …………………….………………………….Appellant William nagar bazaar, William nagar, East Garo hills, tura Meghalaya- 794111 [PAN No. AQBPD6377Q] Vs. ITO, WARD- GOALPARA…………..………………..…………….………... Respondent Alam complex, Swaraj Road, Borobazar, Goalpara, Assam- 783101 Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Jha, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 26, 2026 Date of pronouncing theorder : June 05 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.02.2026 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 271Dof the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that assessee engaged in the business of petroleum products

ITA No.187/Gau/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 retailing and contract business, filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 10,73,540/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, notice for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) were issued. The Ld. AO after considering the submission made by the assessee and after perusing the audit report as well as bank account, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 55,46,555/- by making an addition of Rs. 38,62,552/- under head increase in capital and Rs. 61,04,63/- on account of non-reflection of the amount either in the bank account or in the audit report. Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the Cit(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has dismissed in limine as CIT(A) has found that appeal has been filed after an expiry of statutory period of thirty days and no sufficient cause for such delay has been mentioned in the petition.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied assessee preferred appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in not condoning the delay as assessee has filed a petition to condone the delay thereby mentioning the

ITA No.187/Gau/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 fact that his neighbour did not hand over the documents nor he informed, and the documents and notice which was issued by the department were remain lying in his premises. The Ld. AR submits that his neighbour has also sworn an affidavit to this effect, but the CIT(A) did not consider the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. His prayer is that after condoning the delay, the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

The Ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) but he supports the impugned order. 4. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that there exist no sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 1654 days. The Ld. AR submits that impugned penalty order u/s 271D was passed on 28.11.2019 and it was never served upon him before 04.07.2024 nor Shri Arun Kumar Sangma being his neighbour handed over the documents and informed him that these documents were lying in his

ITA No.187/Gau/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 premises. The further submission of the AR is that on 04-07-24 his neighbour Sri Arun Kumar Sangma handed over documents and then he came to know regarding the order passed. There is no denying to this fact that there is a delay of 1654 days. Assessee has also furnished the affidavit sworn by his neighbour before the CIT(A).

5.

In this context, we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]: "... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant."

In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: 5."It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised

ITA No.187/Gau/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.

6.

The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.

7.

A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause"

ITA No.187/Gau/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”

4.

Keeping in view the facts of the case, considering the submission made by the assessee, affidavit sworn by the assessee and judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are remitting the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merit after condoning the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order on merit after affording an opportunity to the assessee.Order passed by the CIT(A) is hereby set aside

In the result the appeal of the assessee has been allowed for the statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 5th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:. 05 .06. 2026. DC, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

ITA No.187/Gau/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →