RAJA BOSE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2510/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 September 2026AY 2016-20172 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Upon reviewing the affidavit submitted by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal considered these reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restored the appeal to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to furnish necessary documents and details to substantiate their claim without unreasonable adjournments. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raja Bose, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated May 20, 2026, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, which was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The AR requested an opportunity to present the case before the Assessing Officer (AO). The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) opposed this prayer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, thereby violating the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, which is a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee sought one more opportunity of hearing by restoring the issue back to the file of the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee's AR.

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 A. K. Tibrewal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.09.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 20.05.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee may to be given one

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →