Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income, but during reassessment proceedings, the AO added ₹20,00,845 treating purchases from a particular entity as bogus. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a three-day delay.
Held
The tribunal condoned the three-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to a short delay without adjudicating on merits? Whether the delay of three days in filing the appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gautam Gupta…………………..……..…………………....Appellant 20/4/4, Sarada Chatterjee Lane, Howrah, Kadamtala S.O (Howrah), Howrah, W.B – 71101. [PAN: ARWPG0842P] vs. ITO, Ward-47(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Arya Das, AR and Subhajit Roy, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 31, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 31/07/2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Kolkata, dated 27.03.2025, passed against the assessment order under Section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, engaged in the business under the proprietorship concern named M/s. Ma Durga Enterprises, filed the return of income declaring income of ₹6,55,790. During the course of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ₹20,00,845, treating the purchases made from M/s. Devyansh Delcom Pvt. Ltd. as bogus, based on the findings that the said entity was non- Shri Gautam Gupta existent and engaged in issuing accommodation entries without actual movement of goods.
Aggrieved by the above order assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was delayed by three days. However Ld. CIT (A) stated in his order that as per the records, there was a discrepancy in Form 35 Column No. 14 mentioned delay, whereas Column No. 2C showed no delay. Further, the assessee did not file any formal condonation petition explaining the delay. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), without condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay of three days occurred due to illness (viral fever) of the assessee and was purely unintentional. It was further submitted that the purchases were made in good faith and the assessee had received goods from the supplier; hence, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) without going into merits of the case is unjustified. The Ld. AR prayed for condonation of such delay and restoration of the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
On the other hand the Ld. DR, opposed the condonation plea, stating that no petition explaining the delay was filed before the CIT(A), and the dismissal was in accordance with law.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a matter of record that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was only three days, and no condonation petition was filed. However, the Courts have consistently held that technical lapses should not override the cause of substantial justice. In the present case, the delay of three days, claimed to be due Shri Gautam Gupta to illness, is not of such magnitude that it should deny the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merits. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and produce all necessary evidences and explanations before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate his case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 31st July 2025.