TIRATH SINGH PRITHPAL SINGH, BASTAR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD KANKER, KANKER

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was time barred by 299 days and the assessee was not able to furnish sufficient cause for condonation of such delay u/s.249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel has prayed for one final opportunity to submit before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC sufficient cause explaining the said delay, to which, the Ld. Sr. DR did not object to.

The aforesaid identical and similar issue has been dealt with by the ITAT, Division Bench, Raipur in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), ITA No.553/RPR/2025, A.Y.2023-24, dated 13.11.2025 wherein the Tribunal has held and observed as follows: “4. The issue to be looked into in the present matter is whether the assessee was always vigilant enough regarding proceedings i.e. the appeal to be filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and what are the genuine efforts that were conducted by the assessee with his Counsel/Chartered Accountant so to file the appeal on time. In other words, it 3 Tirath Singh Prithpal Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker has to be seen whether the assessee was vigilant assessee, bonafide assessee and whether he has made sufficient efforts to ensure filing of its case before the first appellate authority on time. After verifying all these areas, only one can understand whether such ground of delay would be condoned in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of non-prosecution and the same jurisprudence transcends into the situation that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on ground of delay only without referring and discussing the contents of the assessment order and Form 35 and its annexures. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside. 8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 18th day of March, 2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER