NEETA GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 757/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Neeta Gupta, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which had dismissed her appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay. The original assessment year in question was 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur, was the respondent. The primary legal issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to a 48-day delay in filing, which the CIT(Appeals) did not condone. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) should first determine if there was a 'sufficient cause' for the delay before proceeding to the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841152 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL; VIDYA VERMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.757/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Neeta Gupta Isha Metals Stores, Gol Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN: ADCPG8188L .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA & Vidya Verma, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Neeta Gupta Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.757/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 17.11.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 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 and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not condoned the delay and had dismissed the appeal of the assessee also while discussing the merits of the case. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that they have explained reasons for such delay before the First Appellate Authority, however, the said delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is delay of 48 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the assessee was not able to explain the sufficient cause in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) before the said authority, for which, the appeal was dismissed while not condoning the said delay. 4. Having 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, though having discussed the Printed from counselvise.com 3 Neeta Gupta Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.757/RPR/2025 issues of the appeal, however, it is a matter of common knowledge on the grounds of delay that submissions of the assessee were not substantially treated and adjudicated as evident at Page 18 of the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC wherein it states “the appeal is dismissed on merits. Delay is not condoned.” 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. Furthermore, as examined even the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties herein 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. 5. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 4 Neeta Gupta Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.757/RPR/2025 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of February, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 23rd February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "