GANESH CHANDULAL AGRAWAL,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1, AMRAVATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 447/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the NFAC's dismissal harsh for an individual assessee, especially given the short delay and the claim that books of accounts were not required. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the NFAC were dismissed in limine due to a delay of 31 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the tax professional's busy schedule and festivals.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the NFAC should have been condoned, and whether the NFAC's dismissal was appropriate without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 271A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 11.06.2026

PER BENCH:

These appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 16/07/2025 & 17/07/2025 respectively passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which are emanating from the different penalty orders both dated

ITA Nos. 446 & 447/NAG/2025 (Ganesh Chandulal Agrawal) 18.09.2023 passed u/s. 271B & 271A of the Act respectively for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that NFAC has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 31 days for which learned counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee submitted that as the Tax professional engaged by the assessee was busy in tax audit work and the period was followed by festivals, there was a delay in filing the appeals. Ld.DR has, though, relied on the impugned orders, however, we find that NFAC has merely relied on judicial decisions without appreciating the fact that assessee is an individual and had claimed that books of accounts were not required to be maintained by the assessee. The observation of negligence, inaction, indifference and complete lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant are too harsh observations in case of individual, especially when the delay is not of a substantial long period. Thus, we allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes and the

ITA Nos. 446 & 447/NAG/2025 (Ganesh Chandulal Agrawal) issues on merits as well as law are restored to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Corresponding ground of appeal commonly raised in both the appeals is allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 11.06.2026 sd/- sd/- ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 11/06/2026 vr/- Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order Vukkem Digitally signed by Vukkem Rambabu Rambabu Date: 2026.06.11 15:14:56 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →