JERMELS ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD-2(2), EXEMPTION,, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2723/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 February 2026AY 2018-2019Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the issues on merit. The Ld. AR therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned as the reasons attributable to the late filing of1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the delay of 566 days to be genuine and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 566 days, without deciding on merits. The assessee contended that the delay was genuine and bonafide.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH,KOLKATA

Date of concluding the hearing : 29.01.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 02.09.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)].

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there is delay of 566 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the issues on merit. The Ld. AR therefore, prayed that Jermel’s Accademy the delay may be condoned as the reasons attributable to the late filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) are genuine and bonafide and the appeal may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. DR on the other hand, strongly opposed the contentions of the Ld. AR.

3.

After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material available on record. We find that the delay of 566 days before Ld.CIT(A) is for genuine and reasonable and therefore, condoned. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal exparte without deciding the issues on merit. The Ld. AR therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity of presenting its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR has raised no objection. Consequently, we restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17.02.2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →