ADITYA MODI, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 696/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 October 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay without referring to and discussing the contents available on record. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) and a previous ITAT, Raipur Bench decision in Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should have considered the delay aspect under Section 249(3) and then decided the appeal on merits as per Section 250(4) & (6). The Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC regarding the condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is to adjudicate the issues on merits while complying with the principles of natural justice. The orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC were set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aditya Modi, filed appeals before the ITAT, Raipur Bench, against the orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to a delay of 477 and 301 days, respectively, as the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's representative conceded that the matters could be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, considering the delay aspect in the interest of substantive justice. The ITAT noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating on the merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeals in limine on the ground of delay without condoning it under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and without adjudicating the grounds on merits? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee regarding the delay or merits. However, the ITAT's decision implies the assessee sought an opportunity to explain the delay and have the appeal decided on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative fairly conceded that the matters may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law after considering the delay aspect in the interest of substantive justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: shri Rituparna Namdeo, CIT- DR
Hearing: 23.10.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.07.2026 for the assessment year 2020-21 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 appeals of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 477 & 301 days, respectively. That as discernable from the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, sufficient cause in accordance with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has not been established in the case of the assessee and hence, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed as barred by limitation.

3.

The Ld. CIT-DR/Sr. DR fairly conceded that the matters may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law after considering the delay aspect in interest of substantive justice.

That the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case 4. of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority has to adjudicate

3 Aditya Modi Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 696 & 697/RPR/2026

all the grounds on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground of delay or for non-prosecution. In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under:

"8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.”

The principle of law as enshrined in the judgment of the Hon’ble 5. High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas

4 Aditya Modi Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 696 & 697/RPR/2026

Luthra (HUF) (supra), transcends into the scenario that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss appeal in limine on delay only without referring and discussing the contents available on record before him. Further, we find that similar pronouncement has been provided by ITAT, DB Bench, Raipur in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), ITA No. 553/RPR/2025, A.Y.2023-24, dated 13.11.2025 wherein it was held and observed as follows:

“7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of non-prosecution and the same jurisprudence transcends into the situation that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on ground of delay only without referring and discussing the contents of the assessment order and Form 35 and its annexures. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside. 8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

5 Aditya Modi Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 696 & 697/RPR/2026

6.

The fact of the matter is that since the assessee has not provided sufficient reasons in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act the appeals were dismissed in limine on law of limitation itself, therefore, balancing the scales of justice, it would be appropriate to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to represent his cases before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC on the ground of condonation of delay specifically on terms with Section 249(3) of the Act.

7.

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and upon examination of the facts on the ground of delay and following the aforesaid decisions (supra), even without going into the merits of the matter, we find that the purpose of natural justice shall be served if one opportunity is given to the assessee to explain before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC the reasons for delay and the said authority shall accordingly decide the issue of condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall adjudicate issue on merits as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.

8.

As per the above terms grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6 Aditya Modi Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 696 & 697/RPR/2026

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 26th October, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, SAMIRA // True Copy // Digitally signed by Senior Private Secretary SAMIRAN BERA आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. N BERA Date: 2026.10.27 09:24:16 +05'30'

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 →