BENGAL DISTRIBUTION HOUSE,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, MALDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. The death of a partner, Shri Narendra Narayan Das, who managed the day-to-day and legal affairs of the company, was the reason for the delay, and a death certificate was submitted. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2017-18 against an order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The assessment was completed with an addition of Rs.71,02,210/- and penalty u/s 271AAC(1). The delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) was 868 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, especially when the delay was due to the death of a partner.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: January 21, 2026 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 against the order dated 31.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act with an addition of Rs.71,02,210/- and penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act was imposed by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) as barred by limitation of 868 days in filing the appeal.
Bengal Distribution House 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR challenges the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee only on the ground of delay. He submits that the assessee company consists of two partners namely Shri Narendra Narayan Das and Sri Asis Kundu. The ld. AR also submits that Shri Narendra Narayan Das has died and he has submitted the death certificate of the partner of the assessee-company, which is as under:
Bengal Distribution House 5. The ld. AR also submits that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submission for the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground of delay without considering the same on merits. He, therefore, in the interests of substantive justice prayed for one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to prove the case.
The ld. DR supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection for remitting the appeal of the assessee.
Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have gone through impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground of delay of 868 days without dealing the appeal on merit. We find that one of the partners of the assessee-company namely Shri Narendra Narayan Das died who mainly looked after the day-to-day affairs and also legal affairs of the company and the assessee duly filed the above death certificate in this respect. After considering the above discussion, we note that the reasons for the said delay were bona fide and were beyond the control of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) solely dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without examining the documents submitted by the assessee, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 868 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and also restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing and the ld. CIT(A) will pass a reasoned order after considering the documents submitted by the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings.
Bengal Distribution House 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 21st January, 2026.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Atiquiddin Shaikh vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Mr. Gurudev Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra BankMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
