What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by accepting the assessee's reasons as sufficient cause. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 581 days. The assessee cited medical issues and a change in Authorized Representative as reasons for the delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The primary issue was the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds of delay.

Jyotsna Pal, Bankura vs I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Bankura | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Maninder Singh Dinga, AR

For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 19.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.655/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Jyotsna Pal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bankura, C/o Kartik Pal Salna Patrasayer, West Bengal-722101 Bankura, Kolkata-722206 [PAN: CTRPP6294F] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Maninder Singh Dinga, AR Respondent by : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Appeal) [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 24.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act on 27.02.2024 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 27.02.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The

ITA No.655/KOL/2026 Jyotsna Pal, Bankura.; A.Y: 2019-20 Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24.12.2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that there was sufficient cause to condoning the delay of 581 days, however, the Ld. CIT(A) committed an error in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal. Thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 581 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the Appeal of the assessee on delay in latches.Thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material. We find that the assessee filed the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 581 days. The assessee contended that due to serious medical issues during the relevant period and because Assessee was under medical treatment along with a change in the Authorized Representative, Assessee could not file the Appeal on time and resulted in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A).

It is expected from the assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Page | 2

ITA No.655/KOL/2026 Jyotsna Pal, Bankura.; A.Y: 2019-20 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 581 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and 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.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19.06.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.655/KOL/2026 Jyotsna Pal, Bankura.; A.Y: 2019-20 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

JYOTSNA PAL,BANKURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(1), BANKURA

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