Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a statutory appeal against an intimation under section 143(1) and sought condonation of delay. The delay was computed at 3,412 days, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, stating they received only one notice of hearing and were not given an effective opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to explain and justify the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) issued only one notice for hearing and proceeded to pass the order without providing a reasonable opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This captioned Appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the orders of the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A) Varanasi, dated 31.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Brief Facts of the case:
Before the ld.CIT(A), the Assessee has sought condonation of delay in filing a statutory appeal against an intimation u/s 143(1). The Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A) Varanasi has computed the delay at 3,412 (three thousand four hundred twelve) days reckoned from the statutory last date for filing the appeal to the date on which the present appeal was lodged. Hence, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A) Varanasi dismissed the appeal in limine.
Now, the aggrieved Assessee is in appeal before the ITAT, Chennai.
The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given only one notice of hearing dated 24.10.2025 fixing the case for hearing on 29.10.2025. He pleaded that no effective hearing was given to the assessee.
Per Contra, the Ld.DR pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal and supported the order of the CIT(A).
We have duly considered the submissions advanced by both parties and examined the material available on record. It is observed that the ld.CIT(A) issued only a single notice dated 24.10.2025 fixing the hearing on 29.10.2025 and thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order on 31.10.2025. In our (AY 2013-14) LATHA RAMABADRAM (Vs.) ACIT NCC 3 (1) considered view, adequate opportunity was not afforded to the assessee to explain and justify the delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal, wherein the assessee shall be permitted to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) and furnish cogent reasons in support of the application for condonation of delay. While adjudicating the matter afresh on the issue of condonation of delay, the ld.CIT(A) shall also take into consideration the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of the assessee’s husband. It is clarified that, prior to undertaking fresh adjudication, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.
In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 27th day of January, 2026 in Chennai.