Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a company involved in share investment, filed its return for AY 2012-13 declaring an income of Rs. 9226/-. The assessment was completed with additions for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and disallowance u/s 14A/Rule 8D.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on account of a 53-day delay, without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case? Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned to allow for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
68, 14A, 250, Rule 8D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
order
: January 27, 2026 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and is involved in the business of investment in shares. The assessee had e- filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 24.9.2012 declaring an income of Rs.9226/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. After issuing the statutory notices, the assessment was completed by making addition/disallowance on the two issues i.e. (i)Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 & (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A/Rule 8D.
Navtech Tradelink Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
It was submitted by the ld. AR that during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee only due to delay of 53 days in filing the appeal. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A,) without going into the merits of the case and without considering the submissions filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal solely based on such delay. He requested before the Bench that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities.
We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed solely on account of delay without adjudication on merits and the assessee was thus deprived of submitting relevant documents before the lower authorities. In our considered opinion and on the request of the assessee, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay of 53 days for fresh adjudication on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings and submit all the relevant details/documents and if the assessee failed to comply, then the ld. CIT(A) will adjudicate the matter as he deems fit.