ALHAMD EDUCATION & WELFARE TRUST,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO - WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, HAZARIBAGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 190/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 February 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground of delay without examining the merits of the case. It is a well-settled legal principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, and appellate authorities should adopt a liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay when issues require adjudication on merits. The Tribunal found that the matter deserved to be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and file necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alhamd Education & Welfare Trust, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22. The Assessing Officer (Revenue) issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 24.12.2024, raising a demand. The assessee appealed this intimation before the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on 31.03.2025, holding it to be time-barred as it was filed on 11.02.2025. The assessee, aggrieved by this dismissal on a technicality without a hearing on merits, filed the present appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation, thereby justifying its dismissal in limine, as per Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appeal was dismissed solely on a technical ground of limitation without affording an opportunity to explain the delay or to present its case on merits. It prayed for restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication and to grant one more opportunity to submit relevant documents. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH-RANCHI

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

order

: February 05, 2026 ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 31.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021–22. While processing the return, an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued on 24.12.2024, raising a demand.

3.

Aggrieved by the said intimation, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine,

4.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee filed the present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal was dismissed merely on a technical ground of limitation, without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay or to substantiate its claim on merits. It was prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to place relevant documents on record and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground of delay, without examining the issues on merits. It is well settled law that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, and when the issues involved require adjudication on merits, the appellate authority should adopt a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits, after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and direct the assessee to cooperate and file necessary documents in support of its claim.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 5th February, 2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →