THE ETHELBARI TEA COMPANY 1932 LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Įी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय के सम¢
[Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member]
I.T.A. No. 326/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2020-21
The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932
Ltd.
(PAN: AAACT 9719 J)
Vs.
DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata
Appellant /
)
अपीलाथȸ
(
Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ
Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
21.05.2025
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
30.06.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate
For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR
ORDER / आदेश
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), - Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld.
CIT(A)] dated 10.02.2025 for AY 2020-21. 2
I.T.A. No. 326/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2020-21
The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932 Ltd.
The present appeal has been filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as there was a Bonafide delay of 176 days and in spite of submitting plausible explanation the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the same and reject the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on merit of the case. The assessee has filed Affidavit to this effect that no order has been received by the assessee and delay has been caused only on this ground. 3. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal. Before us, the assessee filed an Affidavit which is as follows:
3
I.T.A. No. 326/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2020-21
The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932 Ltd.
In this context, we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court
4
I.T.A. No. 326/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2020-21
The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932 Ltd.
reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13
Mad 269]:
"... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of juri iction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant."
In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held:
"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional juri iction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.
The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.
A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause"
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”
6. Keeping in view the facts and the reason as stated in the affidavit as well as the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court we are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to place its case before the CIT(A). Affidavit of the assessee has explained the delay and according to us it is just and reasonable, accordingly delay is here by condoned.
The order of Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. The case of the assessee is hereby restored in the file of Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the case after hearing the assessee. The assessee is hereby directed to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A).
5
I.T.A. No. 326/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2020-21
The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932 Ltd.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2025 (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे)
Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय
Dated: 30th June, 2025
SM, Sr. PS
Copy of the order forwarded to:
Appellant- The Ethelbari Tea company 1932 Ltd., C/o, Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. 2. Respondent – ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru 3. Ld. CIT(A)- Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order