What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing reasons of illness, demise of a key person, and the pandemic 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) which was dismissed due to a delay of 2 years and 10 months. The delay was attributed to the illness and demise of the then President and the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 procedural delay rather than the substantive tax matter.

M/S. Duars Rural Development… vs I.T.O., (Exemption), Ward - 2(2)… | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH,

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, FCA

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT DR

Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

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

ITA No.2322/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

M/s Duars Rural Development Vs. ITO (Exemption) Project Ward-2(2), Kolkata C/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072 [PAN: AABTD1317L] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, FCA Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT DR

Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 13.08.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2018-19.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Intimation came to be passed by the CPC Bengaluru on 26.09.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act by making

ITA No.2322/KOL/2025 M/s Duars Rural Development Project; A.Y: 2018-19 certain additions. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2019, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13.08.2025, dismissed the first Appeal on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13.08.2025, Assessee filed the captioned appeal.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that “the delay is attributed to the illness and subsequent demise of the then President, Mr. Nicholas Narjinary, in 2022, which hindered timely action. The situation was further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was eventually filed by his son, Mr. Joshua Narjinary, upon taking charge and becoming aware of the outstanding demand”. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed by the appeal without condoning the delay, thus submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay of 2 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. AR sought for allowing the present appeal.

Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches. Thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

ITA No.2322/KOL/2025 M/s Duars Rural Development Project; A.Y: 2018-19 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material. It is a specific contention of the Assessee that the delay is attributed to the illness and subsequent demise of the then President, Mr. Nicholas Narjinary, in 2022, which hindered timely action. The situation was further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was eventually filed by his son, Mr. Joshua Narjinary, upon taking charge and becoming aware of the outstanding demand.

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 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 2 years 10 months in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a

ITA No.2322/KOL/2025 M/s Duars Rural Development Project; A.Y: 2018-19 direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

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

Order pronounced on 17.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.06.2026 DP, PS 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

M/S. DUARS RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., (EXEMPTION), WARD - 2(2), SILIGURI

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