MANOHAR SINGH,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT,CIRCLE, BARMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 725/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 June 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits, especially when the delay is not deliberate or mala fide. Substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 261 days. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, as the assessee failed to provide reasons for the delay despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter restored for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT, Appeal, Addl/JCIT (A)-1 Chandigarh, rejecting the appeal in limine on the ground of delay of 261 days in filing the appeal before him and thereby refusing to condone the delay under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 14.12.2017 by the Ld. AO. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 04.10.2018, resulting in a delay of 261 days. The assessee had indicated in Form No. 35 that the grounds for condonation of delay would be submitted at the time of hearing. However, as noted by the Ld. CIT(A), no such submission was made despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating the matter on merits.

3.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and caused due to reasonable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →