ADARSH KUMAR GUPTA,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI, BASTI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 April 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a de novo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessee is free to argue on merits and request condonation of delay before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, citing delay. The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits. Whether the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and arbitrary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(3),Section 253(5),Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Delhi i dated 27.06.2024 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and the reasonable cause shown by the appellant. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

I.T.A. No. 244/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2017-18 2

3.

BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) acted arbitrarily and mechanically in refusing condonation of delay without recording cogent and sustainable reasons. 4. BECAUSE the impugned order is contrary to the settled legal position that technical considerations should not prevail over substantial justice. 5. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A), having declined to condone the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, thereby failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. BECAUSE the impugned order is non-speaking, cryptic, and in violation of the mandatory requirement of section 250(6), and therefore liable to be quashed. 7. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the first appellate authority is a quasi-judicial authority vested with Co-terminus powers with that of the Assessing Officer and is duty bound to decide the issues on merits. 8. BECAUSE the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and deserves to be set aside. 9. BECAUSE the impugned order is non-speaking, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 10. BECAUSE the refusal to condone delay has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 11. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.”

(B) The present appeal has been filed beyond the time prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to condonation of delay, as requested by the appellant assessee. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned under section 253(5) of the Act and the appeal is admitted.

I.T.A. No. 244/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2017-18 3

(C) In this case assessment order dated 09.12.2019 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) whereby the assessee’s income was determined at Rs. 8,33,160/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3,29,160/-. An addition of Rs. 5,04,000/- was made under section 69A of the Act. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide impugned appellate order dated 27.06.2024 of First Appellate Authority (‘FAA’ for short). At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew attention to the facts claimed in the grounds of appeal; and submitted that the learned FAA should be directed to pass denovo order in accordance with law. Learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this.

(D) In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order of learned FAA is set-aside and the learned FAA is directed to pass denovo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. By way of abundant caution, it is hereby clarified that the appellant assessee will be at liberty to plead his case on merits as well as to request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before the learned FAA.

(E) All grounds are treated as disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions. For statistical purposes, the appeal is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: SK, Sr.PS

I.T.A. No. 244/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2017-18 4

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →