V3 CORPORATION,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 502/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) ought to have provided at least one more opportunity to the assessee to file the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before dismissing it. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the ITAT deemed it fit to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The direction was for the assessee to file a proper condonation application before the CIT(A), who would then decide it in accordance with the law and subsequently decide the appeal. The first appellate authority was also directed to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, V 3 Corporation, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, against an order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 124 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as not conducting business, not regularly logging into the income tax portal, and remaining unaware of uploaded proceedings. The ITAT condoned the delay in filing its own appeal. The primary issue was that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal before him in limine due to a delay of 106 days without affording a proper opportunity for hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before him, without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the learned CIT(A) dismissed its appeal in limine without providing a proper opportunity for hearing. The assessee had indicated in its Form 35 that grounds for condonation of delay would be submitted at the time of hearing. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to give adequate opportunity to present these grounds and evidence. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the dismissal in limine by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER:BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10159452 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

ITA No. 502/Agr/2026

(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that this second appeal has been filed on 03.06.2026 by a delay of about 124 days. The assessee has prayed to condone the said delay through his delay condonation application, stating that presently the assessee was not carrying out on any business activity and there was no requirement of filing of the no return of income. It was further submitted that the assessee was not regularly logging in to income tax portal and remained unaware of the proceedings uploaded thereon. Further the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to bona fide and reasonable circumstances beyond the assessee’s control and not on account of any deliberate negligence or lack of diligence. We have considered the reasons for delay and we treat the cause shown as sufficient and condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

3.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the various grounds including the one that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before him without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 502/Agr/2026

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee in its Form 35 stated that there is a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was stated in column no. 15 that the grounds for condonation of delay will be submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) vide notice dated 24.10.2025 requested the assessee to submit the grounds for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee filed its submission on 31.10.2025 but failed to submit grounds for condonation of delay and documentary evidences to substantiate the cause of delay in filing of the appeal. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) without giving any further opportunity to the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 106 days.

5.

Heard both the parties. In the given facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have given at least one more opportunity to the assessee to file the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, in accordance with the principle or natural justice, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file the condonation application before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) will decide the same in accordance with law and further decide the appeal accordingly.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 502/Agr/2026

Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

6.

The order of the Ld. CIT(A) a set aside.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 30.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/10/2026 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →