Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 9-day delay in filing, deeming the reasons for delay as non-genuine. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, which noted a 30-day delay in the current appeal and filed a condonation application.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 30-day delay in the current appeal, finding no mala fide intent. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the original appeal in limine without considering the merits or properly inquiring into the delay, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both delay and merits.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of delay in filing appeals and whether the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of delay without addressing the merits.
Sections Cited
Section 249(3), Section 250(4), Section 250(6), Section 251(1)(a), Section 251(1)(b), Section 251(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 15.09.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 30 days, for which, the assessee had filed condonation application a/w. affidavit dated 31.12.2025. The relevant part of the said affidavit is extracted as follows:
We have carefully considered the contents of the condonation petition as well as affidavit and we do not find any malafide or deliberate conduct on the part of the assessee for the said delay. That the Revenue has also not brought on record any counter affidavit nor any evidence to demonstrate that such delay had occurred due to deliberate conduct, if any, on the part of the assessee. Taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, we condone the delay of 30 days involved in the present appeal and the matter is heard on merits.
That the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assesse in limine by not condoning the delay of 9 days. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are extracted as follows: “5.1.3. In view of the fact that the appeal is filed beyond the time limit provided under the Income Tax Act and that reason for delay in filing this appeal is false and non-genuine. The due date by which this appeal ought to have been filed was 20th April, 2023 but it has been filed on 29th April, 2023
5 Rajesh Kumar Singhania HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)
Act. The reason for delay given by the appellant that it had received the demand notice and assessment order on 01 April, 2023 i.e. after 11 days of these having been uploaded online, is held to be non-genuine/untrue and rejected. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed being beyond the time limit.”
That it is discernable from the aforesaid, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground that reasons put forth by the assessee for condonation of delay was non-genuine and false since the assessee had claimed that they had received demand notice and assessment order on 1st April, 2023 i.e. after 11 days of the said documents being uploaded online which was held to be untrue by the said authority. That however, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has not brought any clarity in his order regarding merits of the submissions of the assessee in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and at the same time, before passing order, it was duty bound to enquire in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act which was also not complied with by the first appellate authority. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority has to adjudicate all the grounds on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground of delay or for non-prosecution. In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under:
"8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.”
That at the same time, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for one final opportunity to explain the condonation of delay with all the relevant details in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act.
The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
The principle of law as enshrined in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (supra), transcends into the scenario that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss appeal in limine on delay only without referring and discussing the contents available on record with the said authority. We find that similar issue has been dealt with by the ITAT, DB Bench, Raipur in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), A.Y.2023- 24, dated 13.11.2025 wherein it was held and observed as follows:
“7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of non-prosecution and the same jurisprudence transcends into the situation that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on ground of delay only without referring and discussing the contents of the assessment order and Form 35 and its annexures. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity of 8 Rajesh Kumar Singhania HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside.
8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”
9. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and upon examination of the facts on the ground of delay and following the aforesaid decisions (supra), even without going into the merits of the matter, we find that the purpose of natural justice shall be served if one opportunity is given to the assessee to explain before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC the reasons for delay and the said authority shall accordingly decide the issue of condonation of delay in terms with Section 249(3) r.w.s. 250(4) & (6) of the Act. That once delay condoned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall adjudicate issue on merits as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.
As per the above terms grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2026.