NAGRIK SAHAYYA KENDRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 83/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara( (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it is a cardinal principle to provide an opportunity to explain the reasons for delay before dismissing an appeal. Relying on Bombay High Court's decision, it was held that the appeal cannot be dismissed solely on delay without discussing merits. The matter was remitted back to the Additional CIT(A) for a fresh decision on delay and merits after giving an opportunity.

What were the facts?

The appellant's appeal before the Additional CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 1806 days without providing an opportunity to explain the delay or discussing the merits. The appellant argued that they were not given an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the Additional CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on delay without granting an opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for the delay and without discussing the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Beena Pillai(JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(AM)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Pronounced: 22/05/2025
2.

From the order of Addl.CIT(A), it is observed that the appeal was dismissed as the same was filed with a delay of 1806 days. The Addl.CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for delay and moreover, the appeal was dismissed without discussing the case on merits, it was argued by Ld. AR of the appellant during the appeal proceedings before the ITAT.

3.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. Addl.CIT(A).

2 4. Heard both sides. It is the cardinal principle that before deciding the appeal, the appellant should be given an opportunity to explain the reasons for delay. Moreover, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premkuar Arjundas Luthra HUF 69 Taxmann.com 407(Mum) has held that Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal merely on delay without discussing the merits. In view of the same, the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Addl.CIT(A) to decide the matter of delay and merits afresh after giving an opportunity.

5.

The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →