ARUNAVA ROY CHOWDHURY,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BURDWAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
To ensure natural justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A), directing them to provide another opportunity to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits, without being influenced by the earlier order. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 was time-barred by 90 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, refusing to condone the delay due to a lack of sufficient cause and alleged negligent attitude. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT during its hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred and ex-parte, and if the principles of natural justice warranted a fresh opportunity for a decision on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.11.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014.
(A.Y. 2013-2014) Arunava Roy Chowdhury 2. The appeal is time barred by 90 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-filing of condonation petition within the specified time limit before him in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.
It was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal ex-parte and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2013-2014) Arunava Roy Chowdhury 5. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to decide the case on merit. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/07/2025.
More judgments on Section 249(2)
- Indrani Chatterjee, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2871/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Tapan Mandal, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2870/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Saroj Kumar Haldar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2869/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Saroj Kumar Haldar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2868/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Alok Pal, Etawah vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 723/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026