DEVRAM SONKAR,RAIPUR vs. WARD 4 (1) RAIPUR, CIVIL LINES RAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC cannot dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, citing High Court precedents. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 140 days, as no sufficient cause was provided for condonation. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, but the Revenue conceded to a remand.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed in limine solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, and the procedure for condoning such delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 31.12.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.
At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 140 days. That as discernable from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, no sufficient cause in accordance with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been stated by the assessee and hence, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The relevant paras of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC’s are as follows: “2.1 A perusal of the Form No. 35, reveals that the assessment order was passed on 29/01/2024, the appellant claimed that the demand notice was served on 12/07/2024. However, there is no evidence to support that the order appealed against was not served electronically on the same date i.e. 29/01/2024 but was served subsequently on 12/07/2024. It is, therefore, observed that while the order proposed to be impugned by the appellant in these proceedings, is dated 29/01/2024, the instant appeal has
3 Devram Sonkar Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ITA No.176/RPR/2026
been filed on 17/07/2024. Undeniably, there is a delay of 140 days. 2.2 It is noted that the appellant has not furnished any application for condonation of such delay. On the contrary, the appellant has mentioned a misleading No in the relevant column of Form No.35, which is reproduced as under:
2.3 The appellant has neither made any petition for condonation of delay nor has appended any explanation in the Form No. 35 for having made such a misleading assertion in the Column 14. It is also not the case of the appellant that the instant delay is covered by any exception granted by any Government Notification or Court directive. Hence, the omission to file a proper application for condonation, accompanied by cogent reasons renders the appeal defective.”
The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law for considering the delay in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act in interest of substantive justice.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority has to adjudicate all the grounds on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on the
4 Devram Sonkar Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ITA No.176/RPR/2026
ground of delay or for non-prosecution. In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under:
"8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.”
The principle of law as enshrined in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (supra), transcends into the scenario that the Ld.
5 Devram Sonkar Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ITA No.176/RPR/2026
CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss appeal in limine on delay only without referring and discussing the contents available on record before him. Further, we find that similar pronouncement has been provided by ITAT, DB Bench, Raipur in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), ITA No. 553/RPR/2025, A.Y.2023-24, dated 13.11.2025 wherein it was held and observed as follows:
“7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of non-prosecution and the same jurisprudence transcends into the situation that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on ground of delay only without referring and discussing the contents of the assessment order and Form 35 and its annexures. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside. 8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”
The fact of the matter is that since the assessee has not provided any reasons in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act the appeal was
6 Devram Sonkar Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ITA No.176/RPR/2026
dismissed in limine on law of limitation itself, therefore, balancing the scales of justice, it would be appropriate to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC on the ground of condonation of delay specifically on terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of Uday Venture Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.), ITA No.824/RPR/2025, dated 18.02.2026.
Having heard the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and upon examination of the facts on the ground of delay and following the aforesaid decisions (supra), even without going into the merits of the matter, we find that the purpose of natural justice shall be served if one final opportunity is given to the assessee to explain before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC the reasons for delay and the said authority shall accordingly decide the issue of condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That if the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall adjudicate issue on merits as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.
7 Devram Sonkar Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ITA No.176/RPR/2026
That as per the above terms the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th May, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 5th May, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.05 17:58:04 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 249(3)
- Suguru Anjanaiah, Guntakal vs ITO, Ward-1, GuntakalITA 2336/HYD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Alok Pal, Etawah vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 723/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sanjay Kumar Jaisinghani, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 699/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Shyam Prakash, Danish Kunj, Kolar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2(1)…ITA 687/RPR/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Sarmistha Dey, Hooghly, West Bengal vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1), Hoogly…ITA 2864/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026