TAPAS KUMAR GHOSH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-56(3), MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Baganbari Range, Raghunathgunje, Dist. Murshidabad - 742225 [PAN: AGFPG9066P] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-56(3), Murshidabad, Aayakar Bhawan, 57, R.N. Tagore Road, Baharampore, Murshidabad – 742101 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sanjiv Das Sharma, A.R. Department represented by : Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. CIT, SR. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 22.08.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.1 The short point in this matter is that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) found that there was a considerable delay in filing of the appeal before him. The facts regarding this issue are recorded on page 3 of the impugned order and it is clearly mentioned that the assessee has not filed any reason why the delay should be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication.

Tapas Kumar Ghosh Thereafter, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has found that u/s 249(3) of the Act good and sufficient reasons were not presented before him for condoning the delay. Thereafter, the appeal has been dismissed without any adjudication on merits.

1.1 The assessee is aggrieved with this action and has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl/JT. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and without considering the facts of the case and thereby, erred in sustaining the addition amounted of Rs.12,62,680/-, which was wrongly added in the intimation u/s.143(1)(a) and thus the addition was contrary to the facts and law.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl./Jt.CIT(A) erred in not considering the statement of facts and sustained the addition of Rs. 12,62,680/- by providing only one opportunity of hearing and therefore, the addition was sustained without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard which was arbitrary and unlawful.

4. That the appellant craves leave to urge such other ground or grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

2.1 The Ld. DR stated that keeping in mind the provision of section 249(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to give plausible reasons for requesting condonation of the delay. The Ld. DR stated that this was clearly not done by the assessee.

Tapas Kumar Ghosh 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that as per section 249(3) of the Act there is a very specific mandate that a delayed appeal would be admitted for adjudication only after the assessee is able to present sufficient reasons for the same. In this case, we find that the assessee has not done so and therefore, in principle the action of Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is correct. However, we are aware of the fact that the quasi-judicial forums are mandated to dispense justice and should not, normally, dismiss the appeals on the ground of limitation until and unless there are good and compelling reasons for doing so. In this case, we find that the assessee has not given any reasons for delay before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and thus there was no occasion to consider the sufficiency, or otherwise, of the same. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) for considering the grounds for condoning the appeal, which the assessee is directed to file before him. In case, such grounds are found to be adequate then the Ld. first appellate authority will adjudicate the case on merits.

Order pronounced on 22.08.2025