RAJNATH CHATURVEDI,ODISHA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(4),, KOLKATA

ITSSA 120/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2026AY 2014-20152 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, especially as the Revenue did not object. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without deciding it on merits. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s action was contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates deciding the appeal after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal did not decide any issue on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajnath Chaturvedi, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.04.2025 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed 169 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, and the Revenue's counsel did not object to the condonation. The ITAT noted that the assessment and appellate orders were passed due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding it on merits, contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is to be condoned, considering the reasons provided. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without deciding it on merits, thereby failing to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and instead dismissed it in limine, which is against the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay.

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, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(SS).A. No.120/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Rajnath Chaturvedi, DCIT, Cantonment Road, Mani Sahu Vs. Central Circle – 1(4), Chhack, Cuttack Sadar, Kolkata Odisha - 753001 [PAN:AEEPC1557L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Amit Agrawal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata - 20, (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 30.04.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 169 days. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for

IT(SS)A No.120/Kol/2025/AY 2014-15 Rajnath Chaturvedi vs. DCIT bonafide and genuine reason and, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal as under.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that the assessment as well as the appellate order has been passed when the assessee failed to comply/respond to various notices issued. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the same on merit, thereby not deciding the appeal in accordance with provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 10/07/2026 SAMANTA ] �ȯ��ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��] ��] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. ] ��] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, ] ��\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ��,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[�ȡ_�/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →