LILU GULRAJANI,BANGKOK, THAILAND vs. DCIT, (IT) CIRCLE 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 2214/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 September 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while it is expected for assessees to file appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona fide and beyond the assessee's control, it can be construed as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's clarification that delay with sufficient cause should be viewed liberally and condoned, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which established that justifiable reasons for delay should make way for substantial justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 781 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). Furthermore, as the assessee had not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lilu Gulrajani, a non-resident residing in Bangkok, Thailand, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20.05.2026. This order had dismissed the assessee's first appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 06.02.2024. The assessee's first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 781 days. The assessee contended that this delay was due to being unaware of the assessment order, confusion upon receiving intimation of jurisdiction change, and the time taken to consult a tax professional in India. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 781 days in filing the first appeal, and if so, what is the consequence, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay, citing reasons such as being a non-resident, unawareness of the assessment order, confusion regarding jurisdiction change, and the time taken to consult a tax professional. The assessee relied on the principle that delay with sufficient cause should be condoned. Revenue's contention: The revenue vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay and latches.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH,

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.09.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)(‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 20.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 06.02.2024 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 06.02.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 20.05.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20.05.2026, Assessee preferred the present Appeal

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →