RADHAKRISHNANAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LIMITED,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 2526/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2019-20202 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine for not condoning the delay of 578 days, without deciding the issue on merit, was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. To meet the ends of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The principle established is that appellate authorities should endeavor to decide matters on merit rather than dismissing them on procedural technicalities, especially when there is a significant delay that can be reasonably addressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Radhakrishnanagar Samabay Krishi Unnyan Samity Limited, filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 578 days in filing. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the NFAC's order. The ITAT noted that the NFAC's dismissal without condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merits violated Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned? (Question of fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee implicitly argued for condonation of delay by filing the appeal before the ITAT against the dismissal order. No specific arguments are recorded in the judgment regarding the reasons for the delay. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any arguments as the judgment does not record any submissions from the Revenue's representative.

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, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, 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 15.05.2026 for the AY 2019-20. 2. At the outset, we observe from the appellate folder that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal. Thereby, not deciding the issue on merit which is in violation of Provision of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, to meet the end of justice and fair play, we RadhakrishnanagarSamabay Krishi UnnyanSamityLimited; A.Y. 2019-20 are inclined to condone the del

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 account Sign 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 →