Loading judgment…

SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG | BharatTax

SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 542/RPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)6 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 was dismissed *in limine* by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC due to a delay of 567 days in filing. The assessee contended that the delay was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and sought condonation.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the 567-day delay under Section 249(3), recognizing the Covid-19 pandemic as sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal *in limine* without addressing its merits, citing a Bombay High Court judgment on the mandatory nature of disposing appeals on merits under Sections 250 and 251. The case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for *de novo* adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned given the Covid-19 pandemic. 2. Whether the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal *in limine* without adjudicating on merits.

Sections Cited

Section 249(3), Section 250, Section 250(6), Section 251(1)(a), Section 251(1)(h), Section 251(2), Section 246A, Section 250(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA

For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Hearing: 15.09.2025Pronounced: 17.09.2025

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.10.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

In this case, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine for non-condonation of delay of 567 days. That as per para 3 of the submissions placed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee had tried to explain the sufficient cause for the delay which has been caused and had prayed for condonation of such delay. The relevant para 3 is extracted as follows: “3. The appellant humbly prays that he may kindly be granted personal hearing through video conferencing as provided in Para 12(2) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 so as to enable her to make oral submissions and present her case before the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for which act of kindness the appellant shall always be grateful.”

3.

Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee regarding the condonation part have held and dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation itself observing as follows: “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been demonstrated by the appellant to exist and hence, not

3 Satish Kumar Agrawal, Bhilai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai ITA No.542/RPR/2024

constrained to condone the delay on the facts and circumstances of the case. 06. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed being filed beyond the period of limitation.”

"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.”