What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without calling for an explanation from the assessee regarding the alleged delay. The assessee's explanation for the revised Form 35 was considered reasonable.

The assessee filed an appeal with NFAC, initially stating zero disputed amount. A revised Form 35 was filed correcting this to Rs. 41,79,900. NFAC dismissed the appeal for delay without seeking explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. Whether the correction in the disputed amount in Form 35 constituted a delay.

Amol Sudhakar Thakare, Yerla… vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Nagpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya, CA

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 12.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 14/06/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

ITA No. 478/NAG/2025 (Amol Sudhakar Thakare) 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that assessee has raised grounds on merits as well as law challenging the impugned order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed being filed beyond the limitation period.

Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that the assessee had filed the appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, on 8th January, 2025 vide acknowledgement no. 810059270080125 and in Form 35, copy of which is available at page 2–5, it is pointed out that in column 6 (d) amount of addition/disallowance of law disputed in appeal was mentioned as ‘zero’ which was an incorrect fact, therefore, assesse filed revised Form 35 vide acknowledgment no. 859665240040225 on 4th February, 2025 and in the corresponding column 6(d), the amount of addition/disallowance of loss disputed in appeal was thereby rectified as 41,79,900/–.

Having taking into consideration, the impugned order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, we find that NFAC

ITA No. 478/NAG/2025 (Amol Sudhakar Thakare) observed on the basis of Form 35 that there is delay in filing of the appeal and concluded that the same is not true. However, as per the contentions raised before us, there was no delay actually and the subsequent Form 35 dated 4 th February, 2025 which has been taken into consideration by National Faceless Appeal Centre by way of rectification. It appears that NFAC had not called upon an explanation from the assessee and merely proceeded to dismiss the appeal, however, as a quasi–judicial authority if National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, intended to dismiss the same, then certainly the assessee should have been called upon to explain the delay which has not been done and before us, the assessee has reasonably explained that there was no delay.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and set aside the impugned order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi,. The issues on merits as well as law are restored to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to give afresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order afresh.

ITA No. 478/NAG/2025 (Amol Sudhakar Thakare)

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

Order pronounced in open Court on 12.06.2026

ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nagpur: Dated: 12/06/2026 Z.U, P.S Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order

Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Nagpur

AMOL SUDHAKAR THAKARE,YERLA MORSHI DIST AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD 1 AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments