SH. AJAY KUMAR ,ROORKEE vs. CIT(A), 2-, ROORKEE, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 182/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun04 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a liberty to the assessee to file a condonation application. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the condonation application liberally and then the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 65 days but did not file a condonation application. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering a condonation application, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 04/08/2025Pronounced: 04/08/2025

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Noida-3 (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), Delhi dated 27/08/2024for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on29/03/2022 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/03/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 65 days. However, the Assessee has not filed the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/08/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perusing the material available on record.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay and there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, submitted that the Ld. Ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the first appeal which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal, therefore, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

5.

We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/03/2022, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 65 days. However, the Assessee has not filed the application for condonation of delay, which led the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing first appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches.

6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a liberty to the Assessee to file application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal and such application filed by the Assessee shall be decided liberally and decide the Appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Ordered accordingly.

7.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →