YOKPHO NOKHAM KONYAK,NAGALAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 204/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 June 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It held that since the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and not all grounds were decided on merits, the case should be restored for de-novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 107 days, citing medical reasons. The lower authorities passed ex-parte orders as the assessee did not appear in proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte orders passed by lower authorities warrant a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Add. CIT
Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 09.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.204/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Yokpho Nokham Konyak Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Dimapur S/o-Shir Yokpho Konyak, Nagaland-797112 H.No.209A, Chingai Ward, Mon Town, Dimapur, Nagland-798621 [PAN: DHVPK2115R] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Add. CIT

Date of hearing : 04.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 28.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay contending that the assessee is 59 years old and due to medical

ITA No.204/GTY/2026 Yokpho Nokham Konyak; A.Y: 2020-21 reasons the appeal could not be filed on time. To substantiate the same, assessee has produced medical treatment certificate and sought for condoning the delay. 3. The Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present appeal on delay in latches.

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 11.03.2025 by computing the income of the assessee at Rs.11,80,000/- as against the NIL ITR by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 11.03.2025, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.10.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by

2 | P a g e

ITA No.204/GTY/2026 Yokpho Nokham Konyak; A.Y: 2020-21 the assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.10.2025, assessee filed the present appeal.

6.

None appeared for the assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present appeal, we deem it fit to decide the appeal on hearing the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record.

7.

The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law, which requires no interference. Thus by relying on the orders of the lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the Assessing Officer as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.204/GTY/2026 Yokpho Nokham Konyak; A.Y: 2020-21 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 09.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.06.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →