SHRI RAM INDUSTRIES, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. JCIT, TDS RANGE, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 217/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur02 April 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not provided evidence to refute the assessee's claim regarding the dates. Therefore, the appeal was not time-barred, and the CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed as time-barred by 8 days. The assessee claimed the assessment order was received on April 4, 2022, and the appeal was filed on May 3, 2022, which they contended was within time.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(Appeals) was time-barred, and if the assessee had provided sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.04.2026Pronounced: 02.04.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

1.

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 06.01.2026 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had observed that the appeal before the said authority was time barred by 8 days and that the assessee did not furnish any reasons explaining sufficiency of cause for such condonation in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and hence, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

3.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrates that they had received the assessment order on 04th April, 2022 as had been evident from the track consignment of Indian Postal Department and further, the same date has been reflected in Form 35 and therein, the appeal has been filed on 3rd May, 2022 before the First Appellate Authority, hence, it was within time.

4.

In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that it is not evident that the assessment order has been received through DAK since there is no mention about assessment order and hence, she could not express her

5.

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, I find that the Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to refute these facts on record. Further, even in Form 35, the same date has been mentioned and no dispute has been brought on record by the Revenue authority. In this regard, as per the records, there is no delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances and upon examination of the relevant documents on record, it is held that the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not time barred and accordingly, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication on merits as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. The assessee shall comply with the hearing notices before the said authority.

6.

As per above terms, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 02nd day of April, 2026.

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 →