K S KALE AND SONS,AT VILLAGE- RAJURA vs. HON. ACIT, NAFAC, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 20/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 April 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits previously.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 164 days due to personal reasons including illness of a family member and lack of a local accountant. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to a dismissal of their appeal. The assessee then approached the ITAT challenging the ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and if the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 13.04.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 29.05.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 16.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative.

3.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 164 days. Assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the delay and the contents of the same are as follows :

2 K S kale and Sons “4. That the Appeal Order was served on email id kale14021970@gmail.com. That appellant resides in Village Rajura, having population of about 3000 and which is 35 kms from District - Amravati. The appellant is not well-verse with technology and IT Portal. There is no skilled accountant available locally and accountant visits from Amravati. During this period we did not have a regular accountant due to dispute with earlier accountant and hence could not check this email-id regularly and was not aware of the hearing Notices and Order.

5.

My Mother Smt. Shalinitai Kale is a senior citizen aged 78 years and due to some orthopedic health issues, she was not keeping well since last 6 months. I had to attend to her for treatment at Amravati and could not attend to the hearing Notices and Order. Attending Doctor's medical certificate is attached herewith,.

6.

The impugned appeal is thus delayed on account of the reasons mentioned hereinabove which constitute reasonable cause and the delay cannot be deemed to be wilful nor unreasonable. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be admitted and heard in the interest of justice.

7.

I submit that I have not benefitted in any way from the delayed filing of the appeal and that irreparable loss will be caused to me if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not admitted. 8 No hardship or prejudice will be caused to the Respondent in case the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted, however if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not admitted, I will suffer substantially and irreparable loss will be caused

9.

In light of the above facts and in the interest of natural justice I pray before your honours to kindly condone the delay in filing of the appeal. admit the appeal and hear the appeal on merits in the interest of natural justice.”

4.

I have carefully gone through the above reasons and find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file appeal

3 K S kale and Sons within the stipulated time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions unequivocally laid down that when an explanation regarding delay does not smack of malafides and is otherwise, reasonable acceptance ought to be the rule and refusal an exception. A hyper-technical or pedantic approach, resulting in the dismissal of matters at the threshold, is discouraged as it may cause irreparable prejudice by foreclosing adjudication on merits. The expression "sufficient cause" occurring in limitation statutes has consistently been interpreted to receive a liberal and justice-oriented construction, so as to advance rather than defeat the cause of substantial justice. At the same time, the delay should neither be intentional nor for taking any undue benefit by the assessee. If the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and there is no element of deliberate delay or taking undue advantage in filing the appeal belatedly, then the concept of liberal interpretation must be applied while considering the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In the instant case, I find that the delay in filing the appeal was not with a malafide intention and therefore I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay admitting the appeal for adjudication placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382.)

5.

With the able assistance from Ld. DR and on perusal of record, I observe that the assessee is a Firm engaged in the business of country liquor. Income of Rs.1,53,860/- declared in the original return of income filed for A.Y.2020-21 on 4 K S kale and Sons 13.02.2021. Case selected for scrutiny for verification of low income disclosed by the assessee in the liquor business. Valid statutory notices were served to which the assessee made his submissions but ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the assessee and disallowed the remuneration paid to working partner at Rs.2,27,892/-. Income assessed at Rs.3,81,752/-.

6.

Aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment order dated 16.09.2022 making addition of Rs.2,27,892/- but failed to appear before the First Appellate Authority which resulted into dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the exparte impugned order.

7.

By way of grounds of appeal assessee has been claiming that ld.CIT(A) has not proper appreciated the documentary evidences, statement of facts filed along with Form No.35 and merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and further due to reasons beyond control of the assessee there was non- compliance. Given an opportunity, the assessee is now is a position to substantiate its case on merits. It is therefore prayed for restoring the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

8.

Considering the contentions raised by the assessee and since Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits, I deem it proper to restore the issues back to the file ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues raised in the instant appeal are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set

5 K S kale and Sons aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC are set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 13th day of April, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Nagpur/ दिन ांक / Dated : 13th April, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty 6 K S kale and Sons

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, न गपुर SMC बेंच, 4. न गपुर / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur SMC Bench, Nagpur ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →