Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which had confirmed additions made by the AO under Sections 68 and 14A, and for notional interest income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance, without adjudicating on merits. The assessee sought condonation for a 565-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to non-receipt of the order and the subsequent illness and demise of their previous Chartered Accountant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) could dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, and if the substantial delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 68, 14A, 250(6), 250(4), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b), 251(2), 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 26-August-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 31.05.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.11.2017. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 565 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under:
It has also been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69