DHULIYAN URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(1), MURSHIDABAD

ITA 2547/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 September 2026AY 2019-20205 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause to promote substantial justice, the ITAT condoned the delay of 233 days. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The specific amount in dispute was not recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhuliyan Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the NFAC, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2019-20. There was a delay of 233 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to their tax consultant failing to communicate the CIT(A)'s order and subsequent inaction. The assessee's management only became aware of the dismissed appeal upon receiving a recovery notice from the Assessing Officer. The revenue, represented by Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, argued for dismissal of the appeal due to the delay. The ITAT, considering the assessee's explanation and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (mixed law and fact, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to the failure of their tax consultant to communicate the CIT(A)'s order and subsequent inaction, leading to the assessee's management only becoming aware of the dismissal upon receiving a recovery notice. They argued for condonation based on bonafide reasons and to prevent injustice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and sought dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay and latches. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee (question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: Ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without giving reasonable opportunities. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee did not participate in the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities, and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly passed the impugned order, requiring no interference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,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 Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.09.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 233 days in filing the captioned Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“3. That the information of passing and/or issuing of the appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.09.2025, was not communicated to the management of the petitioner Society as the person entrusted to prepare the accounts of the Society and who m

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 →