VALLEY ROAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JAMMU KASHMIR vs. DCIT/ ACIT CIRCLE, SRINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals and rectify the defects in the appeal memorandum. If satisfied, the CIT(A) should then admit and adjudicate the appeals on their merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to technical defects, including non-submission of the assessment order and belated filing of the appeals. The assessee sought to rectify these defects and explain the delay.
What were the issues?
The key legal issues were the dismissal of appeals on technical grounds, specifically the belated filing of appeals and defects in the appeal memorandum, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to rectify these issues.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
NFAC, Delhi even dated 17.12.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the orders of the DCIT/ACIT, Circle, Srinagar, dated 19.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) and dated 31.05.2021 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 respectively.
The asseseee has taken five grounds in Form No. 36 but the main grievance of the assessee relates to the fact that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on a very technical issue for non-submission of the assessment order along with the appeal memorandum in Form No. 35 and there has been no compliance to subsequent notices issued on various occasions from the office of the ld. first appellate authority requesting for rectification of the defect.
It is further observed by the ld. first appellate authority that the appeal has been filed belatedly by almost one month in as much the assessment order dated 19.12.2019 should have been appealed against within 30 days, but in the instant case, the appeal has been filed on 14.02.2020 which is belated by nearly one month and in the serial no. 14 in Form 35 incorrect entry has been made by stating that there is no delay in filing the appeal, which is factually incorrect reporting in the appeal memorandum.
In course of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal has not been decided on merits of the case because the same has not been admitted on account of technical defects existing in the memorandum of appeal which the assessee undertakes to remove and regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee undertakes to explain the existence of sufficient cause for opportunity of hearing is given.
The ld. DR has no objection.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be served, if the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for allowing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for delay in filing of this appeal and for rectification of the defects existing in the appeal memorandum in Form No. 35, and thereafter on a satisfactory explanations of the same, the appeal may be admitted and adjudicated on the grounds of appeal contained in Form No. 35 on merits.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In this appeal also, it is observed by the ld. first appellate authority that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 10 (ten) months. The matter is remanded to the ld. first appellate authority for allowing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons mutatis mutandis, to this appeal also.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 20.02.2026
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026