M/S. JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 78/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 January 2026AY 2014-20153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 158 days. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and bona fide. Consequently, the Tribunal was inclined to condone the delay. The appeal was restored back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice, and where delays are genuine, they should be condoned to allow for a decision on merits, upholding principles of natural justice. The operative direction is to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Jewel India Jewellers, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without condoning a delay of 158 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to bona fide and genuine reasons and that the CIT(A)'s order violated principles of natural justice. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The Revenue did not object to this request. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the submissions and the materials on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 158 days, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair play? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The delay of 158 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bona fide and genuine reasons. The dismissal of the appeal without condoning this delay was a violation of natural justice and fair play, and the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request for the appeal to be restored to the CIT(A).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, DR
Hearing: 28.10.2025Pronounced: 02.01.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.06.2025 for the AY 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted before bench that the Learned CIT (A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 158 days, which was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Learned CIT (A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly, the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity of hearing before the Learned CIT (A) by restoring the issue back to the file of the Learned CIT (A).

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 158 days. As we found the reasons for delay in filing the appeal to be genuine and bonafide, therefore, we are inclined to condone the same. Accordingly, we restore the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.01.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 02.01.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Initials Sr. Particulars Date Person No. concern ed 1 Draft dictated on 29.12.25 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 29.12.25 Sr.PS Draft proposed & placed before the second Member 3 AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7 File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9 Date of dispatch of Order 10 Dictation Sheet is attached herewith NO

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →