Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to a delay of 899 days, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee sought one final opportunity to present reasons and evidence for condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal allowed one final opportunity to the assessee to present evidence for the condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to decide on the delay first and then, if condoned, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was granted a sufficient opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
Sections Cited
249(3), 250(4), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 20.01.2026 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine on the ground of delay of 899 days by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the reason that the assessee was not able to explain sufficient cause in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) before the said authority.
3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for one final opportunity to furnish specific reasons for establishing sufficient cause regarding condonation of such delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act, hence, prayer was made for such final opportunity.
4. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR though principally relied on the orders of the sub-ordinate authorities, however, on the ground of delay, she fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for deciding the delay aspect first in terms with 3 Agrawal Sponge Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)
Section 249(3) of the Act and thereafter, if the delay is condoned then the matter shall be decided on merits as per law.
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, even without going into the merits of the matter, it is noted that the appeal as per the impugned order has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC on the ground of delay since the assessee was unable to establish sufficient cause for such delay in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. In this regard, I find that on the same parameters, the ITAT, DB Bench, Raipur, in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Sanstha Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward- 1, Raipur, dated 13.11.2025 has observed and held as follows: “4. The issue to be looked into in the present matter is whether the assessee was always vigilant enough regarding proceedings i.e. the appeal to be filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and what are the genuine efforts that were conducted by the assessee with his Counsel/Chartered Accountant so to file the appeal on time. In other words, it has to be seen whether the assessee was vigilant assessee, bonafide assessee and whether he has made sufficient efforts to ensure filing of its case before the first appellate authority on time. After verifying all these areas, only one can understand whether such ground of delay would be condoned in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
6. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
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.
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.”
That on the same parity of reasoning, as per the aforesaid decision and as per similar terms, I am of the considered view that in the interest of principles of natural justice, one final opportunity should be provided to the assessee to present sufficient cause regarding condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. This opportunity is also accorded for the fact that the number of days of delay has not crossed the threshold of reasonableness and is not in the arena of huge inordinate delay. In view thereof, I set-aside the order of the 5 Agrawal Sponge Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)
Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file to first adjudicate on the aspect of delay in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and thereafter, if the delay is condoned, it shall pass a speaking order on merits in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act while complying with principles of natural justice.
As per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 13th day of March, 2026.