PURNACHANDRAPUR MEHERPUR SRINARAYANPUR SKUS LTD.,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1914/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2019-20202 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay, without condoning it and deciding the issue on merits, which is a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be cogent and bonafide and accordingly condoned the delay. Furthermore, considering that the assessment was framed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices, and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Purnachandrapur Meherpur Srinarayanpur SKUS Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 716 days, without adjudicating on the merits. The assessment order, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 33(1), Kolkata, was framed ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee had not responded to notices during the assessment proceedings. The assessee is the appellant and the ITO is the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and decide the matter on merits, considering the violation of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the reasons for the delay were cogent and bonafide. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in this regard. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, due to non-response to notices, is sustainable, and if the principles of natural justice and fair play warrant a fresh adjudication. The assessee argued for restoration of the appeal to the AO for a fresh decision. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in this regard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Minshu Shaw, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury
Hearing: 21.09.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 18.03.2026 for the AY 2019-20. 2. At the outset, we observe from the records, that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 716 days without deciding the issue on merit, which is in violation of Provision of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). We find the reasons for delay to be cogent and bonafide and condone the delay. Similarly, we Purnachandrapur Meherpur Srinarayanpur SKUS Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 note that the assessment framed by the ld. AO was also

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 →