UTTAM HARI MORE,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the delay more dispassionately, given the assessee's non-resident status and past residence in Kolhapur. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 613 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being a non-resident, receiving notices at an old Kolhapur address, and not being informed by relatives. The CIT(A) was not convinced by these contentions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assesse is preferred against the order dated 10/01/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2016-17. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 03/12/2023 against an ex-parte order by the AO framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The appeal was barred by limitation before the ld. CIT(A) and in his submissions in Column 15 of Form 35 stated that there was a delay of 613 days for filing of appeal being a non-resident, the assessee was not aware of the relevant provisions of the Act. The notices were received at the old address which was in Kolhapur and the relatives of the assessee did not inform the assessee about the assessment order/notices. It was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that now the assessee is residing at Thane which address is mentioned while filing the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee pleaded for the condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and after issuing four notices, dismissed the appeal, without admitting the same.
We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have dispassionately considered the delay in filing the appeal once the assessee has stated that he is a non-resident and earlier was residing at Kolhapur but now at Thane, the order/notices must have been sent to Kolhapur and his relatives did not inform him. Subsequently when the assessee came to know, he promptly filed the appeal. In our humble opinion, the appeal should not have been dismissed in limine, therefore, we restore the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to attend the appellate proceedings and furnish necessary details/evidence to the satisfaction of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on the merits of the case, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th October, 2025 at Mumbai. (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 16/10/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु")अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026