M/S. HINDUSTAN GRUH NIRMAN PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 403/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 June 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to delay in filing, without condoning the delay. The assessee had explained reasons for the delay, but they were not considered sufficient.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC can dismiss an appeal in limine on grounds of delay without considering the merits, and if a final opportunity should be granted for explaining the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(4),Section 250(6),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.03.2026 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2019-20 to 2022-23 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

In this case the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi had not passed order in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act. Rather the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed all the appeals in limine not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the said authority. That for ITA No. 400/Rpr/2026 there was a delay of 121 days for filing appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was not condoned and similarly for ITA No. 403/Rpr/2026 the delay was of 134 days, ITA No. 404/Rpr/2026 the delay was of 135 days, ITA No. 405/Rpr/2026 delay was of 135 days, ITA No. 406/Rpr/2026 the delay was of 136 days. That on perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, though the assessee had explained the reasons for such delay, however, the said authority didn’t find the reasons as “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in various decisions of this Bench one final opportunity had been provided to the assessee to explain “sufficient cause” before the CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly, the matter had

3 M/s. Hindustan Gruh NIrman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA Nos.400, 403 to 406/RPR/2026

been remanded back to the said authority in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act.

3.

The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objections for restoring the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC.

4.

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and on careful consideration of the facts it is evident that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not adjudicated these matters on merit and had dismissed all the appeals on the ground of limitation itself. 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. Further, Section 249(3) gives power to the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone delay if sufficient cause is explained. The Ld. Counsel also prayed before the Bench that if one final opportunity is provided then the assessee shall explain the reasons for delay before the First Appellate Authority in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. In the aforestated case the Hon’ble High Court (supra) had observed as follows:

"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

4 M/s. Hindustan Gruh NIrman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA Nos.400, 403 to 406/RPR/2026

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.”

6.

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. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss appeal in limine on delay only without referring and discussing the contents available on record with the said authority. We find that similar issue has been dealt with by the 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:

5 M/s. Hindustan Gruh NIrman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA Nos.400, 403 to 406/RPR/2026

“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.”

7.

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein 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 once delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall

6 M/s. Hindustan Gruh NIrman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur ITA Nos.400, 403 to 406/RPR/2026

adjudicate the issues on merits as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.

8.

As per the above terms grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 16th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 16th June, 2026. Tanmay, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →