SUJATA SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,ANKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14, filed against an assessment order passed under sections 143(3) read with 147, was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as time-barred by 55 days due to unsubstantiated reasons for delay. The present appeal to the ITAT itself was filed with a delay of 146 days, for which the assessee sought condonation.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 146-day delay in filing the appeal before it, recognizing sufficient cause. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) with a direction to first decide the admission of the assessee's appeal after duly considering the explanation for delay, and if admitted, to adjudicate the appeal on merits as per law.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ITAT and whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred without considering the reasons for delay.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250, 250(6), 246A, 253(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order 1068158788(1) dt. 30/08/2024 passed by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-(9), Mumbai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 14/12/2018 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karwar [‘Ld. AO’] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act anent to assessment year 2013-14 [‘AY’].
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita Vs ITO ITA Nos.067/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 2. The present appeal is time barred by 146 days. The appellant’s application for condonation of former delay is supported by an affidavit dt. 24/03/2025 whereby reasons in not filing appeal within the time allowed u/s 253(3) of the Act are explained. The explanation dilated in the course of hearing were noted and reasons stated in the affidavit perused. After vouching the sufficiency of reasons explained, we are satisfied that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from filing present appeal against the impugned order in time allowed and the case of the assessee falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], thus requiring us to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice. In view thereof the undeliberate delay of 146 days occurred in instituting present appeal by the appellant assessee, after placing reliance on former judicial precedents, in the larger interest of justice we condone the same and advanced for adjudication. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita Vs ITO ITA Nos.067/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 3. Without touching merits of the case we have heard the rival party’s submission on the issue of ex-parte dismissal of appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record. We note that, order of assessment in this case was passed on 14/12/2018 and was received by the appellant on that date. The appeal thereagainst u/s 246A of the Act was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 18/03/2019. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said appeal in limine on the ground that appeal was time barred by 55 days. While dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that, the claim of the assessee that, the delay was due to time taken in obtaining digital signature was not supported by any evidence.
Admittedly the prayer for condonation of delay before the 4. Ld. CIT(A) remained unsupported by a petition/affidavit explaining circumstance due to which such delay was occurred. In the course of hearing however the appellant accepted the former defect and in the larger interest of justice prayed for an
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita Vs ITO ITA Nos.067/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 opportunity to cure the same effectively on evidence and explain
the sufficient reasons behind the delay in instituting the appeal u/s
246A of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. Revenue could hardly object
the prayer for remand.
In view hereof, without offering any comments on merits of 5.
the case, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the file to Ld.
CIT(A) at the stage of its institution with a twofold direction to
(a) decide admission of appeal after considering explanation in
accordance with law and if admitted (b) adjudicate the issues
raised in Form No 35 on merits in accordance with applicable law
and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act.
The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 06th May, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4
