MOUNT CARMEL CASHEWS,THALAVOOR PATHANAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
Facts
The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, estimating the assessee's income for AY 2016-17. The assessee appealed this order to the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 139 days in filing.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), acknowledging that the reasons for delay could not be ruled out. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, directing the assessee to provide all necessary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the delay application.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH - DB
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH - DB
BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
ITA No. 798/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mount Carmel Cashews, .......... Appellant Kura, PO, Thalavoor, Pathanapuram, Kollam, Kerala-691 508. vs. [PAN: AANFM9149F]
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Officer, Kollam
Assessee by: None Revenue by: Mr.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Date of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.11.2025 O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 27.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed ex-order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 28.02.2023 estimating income at
Rs.3,12,41,634/- being 8% of the turnover. Aggrieved by the said order,
the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the
learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as the appeal has been filed late by 139 days.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the Ld. AR for assessee read out statement of facts
wherein reasons for delay are recorded. The Ld. D.R relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld. DR,
however, keeping in mind the natural justice, we are of the view that the
assessee may be granted opportunity to file submissions and evidence,
if any before the ld.CIT(A). We are of the considered view that the
reasons given for delay in filing cannot be ruled out. Hence we condone
the delay. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is
restored back to the appeal file to the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on merits.
The Ld.CIT(A) shall proceed for hearing the appeal on merits after
affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is
directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents, if any,
forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to
proceed with the appeal proceedings on merits as per law. The Ld. AR
of the asssessee also assured us that the assessee will prosecute the
case diligently before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November-2025 at Cochin.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 25th November, 2025 K.B Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File
