URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JAISALMER,JAISALMER vs. WARD EXEMP, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1012/JODH/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal and had dismissed the appeal in limine. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard. The delay was condoned, and the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide a meaningful and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh on merits. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaisalmer, is in appeal against an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) refusing to condone a delay of 55 days in filing an appeal. The original appeal was against a reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee had filed its original return declaring NIL income. The assessment was reopened on 27.07.2022, and a revised return was filed on 04.02.2023. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 6,30,21,210/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, deeming the reasons for the 55-day delay unacceptable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee. (Question of fact and law, turning on Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) ignored the fact that sufficient and reasonable cause was demonstrated for the delay, which was not deliberate or intentional. The delay was attributed to administrative and procedural circumstances arising from a change in management/administration of the trust and the movement of files through official government channels. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH

Before: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shamra, CIT-DR

आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT

I.T.A No. 1012/Jodh/2026 Page No 4 Urban Improvemen t Trust, Jaisalmer

4.

CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 11:03:08 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →