STUTI PERIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

ITA 2250/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 September 2026AY 2014-20154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 384 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Stuti Periwal, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 2250 & 2251/KOL/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 13.03.2025. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 and 2012-13. There was a delay of 384 days in filing these appeals. The assessee explained the delay as being due to lack of knowledge of the assessment order and subsequent consultation with an income tax practitioner. The assessment orders for AY 2014-15 and AY 2012-13 were passed under Section 143(3) and Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively, on 21.12.2016 and 08.11.2019, with certain additions. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals against these assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 384 days in filing the appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2012-13 is to be condoned, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The delay occurred due to lack of knowledge of the assessment order and was neither intentional nor deliberate, requesting condonation in the interest of justice. Revenue's contention: There is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, and the appeals should be dismissed on grounds of delay and latches. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2012-13 without providing an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice, turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) provided no opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the CIT(A) and sought dismissal of the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nilofer Parveen, AR
For Respondent: Shri Debasish Biswas, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.09.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER BENCH: These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 13.03.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2012-13. 2. There is a delay of 384 days in filing the captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“3. That immediately after receiving the said notice, I personally checked my Income Tax account and found that demand has been generated and appellate order has been passed for A.Y. 2014-15 then I contacted and consulted my Income t

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 →