M/S SOMU PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the delay condonation petition. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 76 days. The delay was attributed to the ill health of one of the directors who was undergoing treatment abroad. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the petition to condone the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the petition for condonation of delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’BENCH,
Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), XXIV, Kolkata dated 20-01-2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.
The only effective issue in this appeal is to be decided by us as to whether the CIT-A justified in dismissing the appeal of assessee without considering the petition to condone the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal.
The ld.AR submits that the CIT-A dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine without considering the petition for condonation of delay. The said appeal was filed before him with M/s. Somu Properties Pvt. Ltd 1 the delay of 76 days. The ld.AR of the assessee further submits that an affidavit to that effect was filed before the CIT-A stating that Mr. Lakshmi Nath Mehrotra, who was one of the directors of the assessee company, was detected with cancer of the liver and had to go for his treatment to Singapore in the month of December, 2011. The ld.AR submits that the said delay caused due to health condition of the said person, Mr. Lakshmi Nath Mehrotra, (who was one of the directors of the assessee company), which was beyond the control of the assessee company to file the appeal in time before the CIT-A. The CIT-A without considering the health condition of the said person dismissed the appeal by invoking the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. Thus, he urged that the CIT-A may be directed to condone the said delay and consider the issue(s) on merits. Before us the ld.AR of the assessee undertakes that the assessee shall cooperate with the CIT-A in prosecuting its case without seeking any adjournment. On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the same.
Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee filed a petition to condone such delay of 76 days before the CIT-A. The assessee in the said petition stated that Mr. Lakshmi Nath Mehrotra, who was one of the directors of the assessee company, was suffering from cancer of the liver and he was under treatment in Singapore during the relevant periods. But, however, the CIT-A found that the said appeal was signed by another director, not by the said person, who was under treatment. Taking into considerations the submissions of the ld.AR, the reasons stated M/s. Somu Properties Pvt. Ltd 2 in the condonation petition and in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the CIT-A with the direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue(s) on merits afresh and to pass an order as per law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT-A to prosecute its case properly without seeking any adjournment.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 5.
More judgments on Section 249(2)
- Indrani Chatterjee, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2871/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Tapan Mandal, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2870/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Saroj Kumar Haldar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2869/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Saroj Kumar Haldar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2868/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Alok Pal, Etawah vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 723/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026