TRANSWORLD MUSLIM UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,BARBAR SHAH SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

PDF

ITA 39/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders, which arose from AO orders for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, initially passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the I.T. Act. The appeals before the Tribunal were delayed by 277 days, and prior to that, the appeals before the CIT(A) were also delayed by 91 and 201 days respectively, leading to their dismissal under section 249(3) without adjudication on merits.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's cumulative delay in filing appeals both before itself and the CIT(A), noting that the appeals before CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits. It imposed a token cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee for being a 'habitual defaulter' and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

Key Issues

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT should be condoned, and if the cases should be remanded for adjudication on merits despite procedural delays.

Sections Cited

250, 147, 144, 144B, 249(3), 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

For Appellant: Adv. :

Hearing: 15.12.2025Pronounced: 17.12.2025

of ex-parte order by the ld. first appellate authority necessary steps were taken for filing this appeal before the tribunal, belated by 277 (two hundred seventy seven days) which may please be condoned because the same was not intentional or willful and appeals may please be admitted to be heard on merits.

The ld. DR has no objection for condonation, but pointed out that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and there has been delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) also, resulting in refusing to admit appeals for violation of section 249(3) of the Act 61.

3.1 Considering the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee is indeed a habitual defaulter because the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority for both the years , has been filed belatedly by 91 days for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 201 hearing on merits by the ld. first appellate authority and the appeal has been dismissed u/s 249(3) of the Act , by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals beyond the limitation period.

3.2. We further note that while filing these appeals before the Tribunal, there has again been a delay of 277 days and we find that the assessee is not serious enough to pursue the matters in the appeal forum and we find that it is a suitable case for imposition of cost , but considering the charitable activities carried out we impose just a token cost of Rs.2,000/- ( two thousand only ) on the assessee and we direct the assessee to pay the said amount to the credit of “Prime Ministers National Relief Fund” within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order ( receipt to be produced before JAO ).

However, the ld. AR of the assessee appearing in the court has prayed for condonation of the delay and asked for one more opportunity to put-forth his case and submissions on merits, considering the fact that no opportunity was provided for presentation of case because of non-receipt of hearing notice.