What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground without examining the merits was incorrect. The assessee argued that no advance tax was payable as there was no taxable income.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay, which was condoned. The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed in limini for alleged non-payment of advance tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of non-payment of advance tax without considering the merits of the case, especially when the assessee claimed no taxable income.

Raj Kumar Jain, Bikaner vs ITO | ITAT Jodhpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) and Smt. Raksha Birla CA, (Physically)

For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 931/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Raj Kumar Jain ITO, 4D 91, Behind Dungar College, J.N.V. Delhi Colony, Rajasthan-334001 PAN No. AFQPJ 4847 P Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) and Smt. Raksha Birla CA, (Physically) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physically) Date of Hearing 04 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026.

ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 31.01.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15.

It is observed that there is a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Having considered rival submissions, we find that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

2 ITA No. 931/Jodh/2024 Asst. year: 2014-15 3. The limited grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against dismissal of his appeal in limini alleging non-payment of advance tax. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly submitted that due to non-appearance before the Assessing Officer, assessment was completed ex- parte. However, he submitted, the dismissal of the appeal in limini due to alleged non-payment of advance tax is illegal as there is no liability on the assessee to pay advance tax as the assessee had no taxable income. Thus, he submitted the order of the First Appellate Authority may be set aside and the assessee may be granted opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer to explain the issues relating to the additions made.

Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we find that the assessee is stated to be a stamp vendor and has no other source of income except the commission received from Government towards selling of stamp. It has been submitted before us that the amount received towards sale of stamp is deposited to the Government Account and such receipt is not the income of the assessee. He submitted, since the assessee individual had no taxable income, there is no question of paying any advance tax. Keeping in view the submissions of the assessee coupled with the fact that the assessment was

3 ITA No. 931/Jodh/2024 Asst. year: 2014-15 ex-parte and Ld. First Appellate Authority has decided the appeal on technical ground without examining the merits, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority and restore the issues arising in the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07/08/2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,BIKANER vs. ITO, NFAC DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments