Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was delayed by 3 days and condoned due to the assessee's illness. However, the original appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with an inordinate delay of 1832 days (over 5 years), which the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed solely due to the delay without addressing the merits or the condonation request. The assessee appealed this dismissal to the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC cannot summarily dismiss an appeal based solely on delay without first considering the condonation request for the delay under Section 249(3) and then adjudicating the appeal on its merits as per Sections 250(4) & (6). The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to follow the prescribed legal procedure.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can summarily dismiss an appeal for inordinate delay without considering the condonation application and adjudicating the case on its merits as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, Section 251(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act, Section 251(2) Explanation of the Income Tax Act, Section 246A of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 26.06.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 3 days before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the due date for filing the appeal was 31.08.2025 and the assessee had filed the appeal on 03.09.2025 since he was unwell. In this regard, the assessee had filed medical prescription and certificate from the doctor treating the assessee which is dated 24.08.2025.
The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection regarding condonation of delay of 3 days.
Having heard the parties herein, I am of the considered view that when the assessee was unwell physically on 24.08.2025 and then it is within the parameter of human probabilities that the law of limitation could not have been complied with by the assessee for filing the appeal within 31.08.2025 which was the due date. Considering the aforesaid facts, taking guidance of the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, I condone the delay of 3 days involved in filing of the appeal.
Coming to the merits of the matter, it is on record that there is inordinate delay of 1832 days i.e. more than 5 years in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and as per submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR, there was no valid justification which was provided by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC regarding condoning of the said delay and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay itself.
Further, as part of legal jurisprudence regarding adjudication by appellate authorities, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC needs to also look into the merits of the matter as per decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). That as per the mandate of law the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal in limine without dealing with the merits of the case. In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as follows:
"8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub- s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice.
In this case, first of all, the assessee needs to explain the reasonable/sufficient cause for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall consider the submission of the assessee on the aspect of delay and decide such condonation validity and thereafter, shall look into the merits of the matter. At the same time, it is directed that this being the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld.CIT(Appeal)/NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 18th day of September, 2025.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 18th September, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2.