RAMA THAKUR,KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-KULLU, KULLU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1601/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 April 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reasons for the assessee's inability to file the appeal in time. The appeal was then decided on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for want of prosecution. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was time-barred by 211 days, seeking condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment, confirming an addition, and disallowing credit for self-assessment tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 18.02.2025 passed for assessment year 2015-

16.2.

The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 211 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. A perusal of the application would indicate that the A.Y.2015-16 2

appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT (Appeals) ex- parte for want of prosecution which is contrary to the mandate provided in sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. This Section contemplates that CIT (Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter decide the issues on merit. This ex-parte order was not in the knowledge of the assessee and therefore, assessee could not file the appeal well in time.

3.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that assessee was prevented by sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal well in time. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.

4.

The assessee has taken 8 grounds of appeal, however, her grievance revolves around three issues, namely ; a) The CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re- opening of assessment.

b) The CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.65,20,000/-. A.Y.2015-16 3 c) The CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the AO of not allowing credit of self-assessment tax of Rs.2,51,493/-.

5.

We first take Ground No.

5.

The AO has made an addition of Rs.65,20,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain. A perusal of the record would indicate that AO has alleged that assessee has sold a property which was registered with Sub

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →