KAMALJEET KAUR GILL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-3(1) ESTW. ITO WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 79/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the assessee to explain the 'sufficient cause' for the delay. If satisfied, the CIT(A) should then decide the issue on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 608 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay or adjudicating on the merits, stating that the appeal was not admitted for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the 'sufficient cause' for such delay and adjudicating the case on its merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 26.02.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

1.

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 12.11.2025 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was time barred by 608 days and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not condoned the said delay and had dismissed the appeal.

3.

I have heard the submissions of the parties herein, even without going into the merits of the matter since the First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and that the submissions of the assessee were not substantially treated and adjudicated on merits as evident at Page 7, Para-6 of the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC wherein it states “……Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.” It is therefore, clear that the First Appellate Authority did not find merit regarding “sufficient cause” in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act as assailed by the assessee, hence, dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudication on merits. Furthermore, as examined even the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties herein

3 Kamaljeet Kaur Gill Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) could not be fully examined without condoning the said delay. Therefore, in the greater interest of natural justice, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file directing the assessee to explain the “sufficient cause” for such delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. Once the said authority is satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, then it shall proceed to decide the issue on merits as per law complying with the principles of natural justice and pass order as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

4.

As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 26th day of February, 2026.

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 →