SANJAY KUMAR JAISINGHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 699/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 October 2026AY 2019-207 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits. Following the principles laid down in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bom) and Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan (ITAT, Raipur), the Tribunal stated that an appellate authority has to adjudicate all grounds on merits and cannot dismiss an appeal solely on delay or non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient reasons for the delay under Section 249(3) of the Act. Therefore, to balance the scales of justice and serve the purpose of natural justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, specifically on the issue of condonation of delay under Section 249(3). The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay and, if condoned, then adjudicate the appeal on merits as per law, while complying with the principles of natural justice. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Kumar Jaisinghani, proprietor of M/s. Manish Stores, filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 47 days, finding that the assessee had not established sufficient cause for the delay as required by Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC noted that the assessee had not even acknowledged the delay, let alone explained it, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits of the case, as per Section 249(3) and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) and a coordinate bench of the ITAT, Raipur in Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO, arguing that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay or non-prosecution but must adjudicate on merits. The assessee sought an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the matter could be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication as per law, considering the delay aspect in the interest of substantive justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(h),Section 251(2),Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 31.07.2026 for the assessment year 2019-20 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 47 days. That as discernable from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NF

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 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →