Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, who received contractual receipts with TDS, failed to file an Income Tax Return for AY 2018-19. Consequently, proceedings under Section 147 and 148 were initiated, leading to an assessment by the AO with a significant addition to income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal solely on the grounds of a 130-day delay in filing, without considering the application for condonation of delay on its merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without adequately considering the condonation of delay application or issuing a speaking order. It emphasized that appellate authorities should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach when bona fide reasons for delay are demonstrated. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal solely due to delay without a speaking order on the condonation application, and whether such an action violated the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [PAN: ARIPM6300Q] vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 21, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.12.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee had received contractual receipts of Rs.51,04,000 from M/s. Gajmer Works during the A.Y. 2018-19 and Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs.54,040/- was also made on the said receipts. However, the assessee did not file its return of income for the said assessment year. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, the Assessing Officer completed the Binod Moktan assessment by determining the total income at Rs.74,64,042/-, after making an addition of Rs.69,71,272/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 130 days in filing the appeal, holding that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of the delay 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, despite the assessee having filed an application for condonation stating valid reasons for the delay. It is argued that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits, and the principles of natural justice require that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities.
The learned Departmental Representative (DR), however, supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the delay was inordinate and not properly explained.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the e appeal of the assessee in limine, solely on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 130 days, which according to the ld. CIT(A), was not satisfactorily explained. However, the record shows that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with reasons for the delay. The CIT(A), however, did not record a speaking order or provide any discussion on whether the reasons furnished constituted "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. It is a well-settled law that when the assessee demonstrates bona fide reasons and there is no mala fide intent or deliberate delay, the appellate authority should adopt a liberal and Binod Moktan justice-oriented approach to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. In the present case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A), with a direction to consider the appeal of assessee after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to reconsider the assessee's appeal by condoning the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions are kept open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Kolkata, the 22nd July, 2025.