V 3 Corporation Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)
CIT(A) Should Grant Further Opportunity Before Rejecting Delay Condonation: ITAT Agra
Introduction
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, set aside an order dismissing an assessee’s first appeal for failure to substantiate its request for condonation of delay. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have granted at least one further opportunity to explain the delay before rejecting the appeal at the threshold.
The Tribunal separately condoned a delay of approximately 124 days in filing the appeal before it. However, it did not itself condone the 106-day delay before the CIT(A). That question was restored to the first appellate authority for consideration in accordance with law.
Background of the Case
V 3 Corporation challenged the order dated 25 November 2025 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The first appellate authority had dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine after declining to condone the delay in filing it. Consequently, the underlying appeal had not proceeded to substantive adjudication.
The assessee approached the Tribunal, raising various grounds, including that the CIT(A) had rejected its appeal without affording a proper opportunity of hearing on the delay-condonation issue.
The Tribunal’s decision focused on these procedural questions rather than the merits of the underlying assessment.
Delay Before the Tribunal Condoned
The assessee filed its second appeal on 3 June 2026, with a delay of approximately 124 days. It submitted an application seeking condonation.
Explaining the delay, the assessee stated that it was not carrying on any business activity and considered that there was no requirement to file a return of income. It further explained that it was not regularly logging into the income tax portal and consequently remained unaware of the proceedings uploaded there.
According to the assessee, the delay arose from bona fide and reasonable circumstances beyond its control, rather than deliberate negligence or lack of diligence.
After considering the explanation, the Tribunal treated the cause shown as sufficient, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.
This finding concerned the delay in approaching the Tribunal and was distinct from the earlier delay before the CIT(A).
Proceedings Before the CIT(A)
In Form 35, the assessee had disclosed a 106-day delay in filing its first appeal. In column 15, it stated that the grounds supporting condonation would be submitted at the time of hearing.
The CIT(A) subsequently issued a notice dated 24 October 2025, requesting the assessee to furnish its reasons for the delay.
The assessee filed submissions on 31 October 2025. However, the CIT(A) recorded that those submissions did not contain the grounds for condonation or documentary evidence substantiating the cause of delay.
Without granting any further opportunity, the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Thus, the immediate controversy before the Tribunal was whether the appellate proceedings should have ended at that stage.
Tribunal’s Findings on Opportunity of Hearing
After hearing both parties, the Bench held that, on the facts of this case, the CIT(A) should have afforded the assessee at least one more opportunity to submit its explanation for delayed filing.
The Tribunal therefore considered it appropriate to restore the matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Its reasoning did not overlook the assessee’s failure to provide the requested explanation. Instead, it required that the omission be addressed through a further opportunity before the appeal was finally rejected on limitation.
The decision consequently provided the assessee another chance to place its condonation request properly before the first appellate authority.
Directions on Remand
The Tribunal directed the assessee to file a condonation application before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) was instructed to decide that application in accordance with law and thereafter deal with the appeal accordingly. The Tribunal also emphasised that the first appellate authority must ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Importantly, the remand did not determine that the assessee’s explanation for the 106-day delay was necessarily acceptable. The sufficiency of that explanation remained for the CIT(A) to examine.
The assessee therefore obtained an opportunity for reconsideration, rather than an unconditional direction requiring admission of its first appeal.
Decision and Significance
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The order distinguishes two separate outcomes: the Tribunal condoned the 124-day delay before it, while restoring the 106-day delay before the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The ruling highlights the importance of a meaningful opportunity to support a delay-condonation request. It also leaves responsibility with the assessee to furnish its reasons and supporting material.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10159452 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine.
2. At the very outset, it is noticed that this second appeal has been filed on 03.06.2026 by a delay of about 124 days. The assessee has prayed to condone the said delay through his delay condonation application, stating that presently the assessee was not carrying out on any business activity and there was no requirement of filing of the no return of income. It was further submitted that the assessee was not regularly logging in to income tax portal and remained unaware of the proceedings uploaded thereon. Further the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to bona fide and reasonable circumstances beyond the assessee’s control and not on account of any deliberate negligence or lack of diligence. We have considered the reasons for delay and we treat the cause shown as sufficient and condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
3. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the various grounds including the one that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before him without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee in its Form 35 stated that there is a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was stated in column no. 15 that the grounds for condonation of delay will be submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) vide notice dated 24.10.2025 requested the assessee to submit the grounds for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee filed its submission on 31.10.2025 but failed to submit grounds for condonation of delay and documentary evidences to substantiate the cause of delay in filing of the appeal. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) without giving any further opportunity to the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 106 days.
5. Heard both the parties. In the given facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have given at least one more opportunity to the assessee to file the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, in accordance with the principle or natural justice, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file the condonation application before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) will decide the same in accordance with law and further decide the appeal accordingly. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.
6. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) a set aside.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on – 30.09.2026
