GEETA VIJAYWARGIYA,INDORE vs. ITO WD, TONK, TONK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1245/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 November 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay and did not provide any sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as it was barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order that dismissed their earlier appeal, which had challenged an assessment order for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) had referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, citing lack of vital information and overlooking of documents by the AO. The appeal was filed with a delay of 249 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, without an application for condonation of delay and sufficient cause, is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

Hearing: 17/11/2025Pronounced: 17/11/2025

vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . On 05.08.2025, the assessee filed an appeal, feeling aggrieved by order dated 21.10.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated 18.05.2023, relating to the assessment year 2014-15, came to be dismissed and while exercising powers u/s 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (in short “the Act”), the matter stands referred back to the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment.

Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore. Learned CIT(A) so referred the matter to the Assessing Officer keeping in view that during assessment proceedings, the assessee could not furnish vital information relating to transaction with M/s M N Enterprises, and while appreciating the contention on behalf of the appellant raised there that the Assessing Officer had overlooked relevant documents submitted during assessment proceedings.

Learned CIT(A) was of the view that all the aspects raised by the assessing in the appeal required re-examination, including as to the nature and source of the transactions made by the appellant and that the assessee was entitled to an opportunity, in the interest of principles of natural justice, as per decision in CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 3312 of 2009, wherein importance of reasonable opportunity was emphasized by Hon’ble Apex Court.

Condonation of delay

2.

It may be mentioned here that the Registry raised a deficiency note that the appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed after a delay of 249 days.

Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore. 3. Despite the above said deficiency note, the assessee has not submitted any application seeking condonation of delay. Column no. 11 of Form 36, requires that in case there is delay in filing of the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay is to be attached to the memorandum of appeal.

4.

Be that as it may, it was for the assessee-appellant to satisfy that there was sufficient cause in non-filing of the appeal within prescribed period of limitation.

Only of such satisfaction, Appellate Tribunal would admit the appeal while condoning delay in filing of the appeal. Since no such application has been filed or prayer has been made seeking condonation of delay and no sufficient cause has been alleged, what to say of its proof, it can safely be said that there was no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal withint the prescribed period of limitation.

Consequently, the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

5.

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/11/2025.

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →