AGRAWAL SPONGE LTD. , RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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.

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.

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.

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, ITA No. 553/RPR/2025, 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. 5. 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.

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. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER