RAM CHANDRA MADHESHIA,MAU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 202/VNS/2024Status: HeardITAT Varanasi11 June 2026AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted and decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an assessment order was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation. The assessee claimed they had not received the original order and filed the appeal after obtaining a certified copy.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI

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)/NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14.10.2024 for the AY 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation without appreciating the fact that the appeal was filled after obtaining certified copy of order as the assessee had not received the original order.

I.T.A. No. 202/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2

2.

Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal without considering the case on merits and thus victimizing small assessee for technical default rather than any evasion or short payment of due taxes.

3.

Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the A.O. had assumed jurisdiction U/s 148 without any of any valid information escapement of income on presumption that no return was filled where as proper return was already on record filled vide Acknowledgement No. 337601420060212 dated 06/02/2012

4.

Because the order is bad in law as it has been passed without proper service of notice and without giving proper opportunity of being heard.

5.

Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that the learned AO has treated the entire credit side of the bank accounts as income without appreciating the regular debits and credits of bank account showing the business nature of the account but adverse view has been taken simply on presumptions, conjectures and surmises.

6.

Because the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the order passed is against the spirit and categorical instructions of CBDT to the effect that where income is declared under the presumptive scheme then no further inquiry of addition can be made.”

(B) In this case assessment order dated 24.12.2018 was passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs. 24,01,990/-. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 14.10.2024. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on limitation ground. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

I.T.A. No. 202/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 3

(C) At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. On the absence of any written representation from the assessee’s side the learned Departmental Representative was heard. He left the decision to the discretion of the Bench. On perusal of the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), it is found that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) is set-aside with the direction to admit the appeal, and to pass denovo appellate order in accordance with law, on merits of the grounds of appeal, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The delay in filing of appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) stands condoned.

(D) In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 11/06/2026 SK, Sr.PS

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →