SUSHIL KUMAR GANERIWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1978/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 January 2026AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons sufficient and reasonable. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was barred by limitation by 150 days. The assessee had filed a condonation petition, citing bonafide and reasonable reasons for the delay. The assessee's counsel argued that the order was passed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned and if the case should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Respondent: DR Som Nath Das, Sr. DR

vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata, Govt. Place, Kolkata - 700001 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Gaurav Mathur, Adv. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Som Nath Das, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.01.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 07.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

2.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 150 days for which the condonation petition has been filed. After going through the contents of the application, we find that the delay is attributable to Bonafide reasons which are sufficient and reasonable. Therefore, the reasons cited by the assessee

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte when the assessee failed to make any compliance on various opportunities granted by the appellate authority. The Ld. AR therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity of presenting his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR has raised no objection.

4.

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.

5.

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

Order pronounced on 20.01.2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →