LAXMAN KUMAR PATRO,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days on medical grounds. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for admitting the appeal and adjudicating on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 28-day delay in filing. The assessee explained the delay was due to being abroad and subsequent illness, supported by documentary evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned on medical grounds. Whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,
Before: SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE
आदेश / ORDER PER UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A) - 2, Pune, [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act”] dated 30.07.2025 which has emanated from the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld.AO”] dated 24.05.2024 passed under section 154 of the Act.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: -
“1. That the Ld. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Income Tax Department, has erred in law and on facts in raising demands of Rs. 1,86,439/-, Rs. 95,064l-, Rs. 1,15,568/-, Rs. 9,413/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards Income Tax and interests u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234F without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in the interest of justice, the Ld. CPC ought to have considered and excused the inadvertent error committed by the appellant in wrongly mentioning the Financial Year and Assessment Year while filing the return, instead of mechanically treating the return as pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That the Ld. CPC has failed to consider the genuine grievance of the appellant and ought to have guided or directed the appellant on the appropriate manner of resolving the issue, rather than raising erroneous demands under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Brief facts emerging from records are that, appeal filed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2024 has not been adjudicated on merits of the case, by refusing to admit the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the same before the Ld. First Appellate Authority by 28 ( twenty eight ) days. The reasons for the delay as explained by the assessee was that he was travelling abroad when the rectification order u/s 154 , was passed and thereafter the assessee fell seriously ill, in support of which he has failed copy of passport documents and medical prescriptions . Thereafter on returning to India on 15.06.2024 he contacted his counsel, prepared and filed the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority belated by 28 ( twenty eight ) days. The said explanation was not considered to be sufficient by the Ld first appellate authority and as such the Ld CIT(A) has refused to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits by refusing to condone the delay as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, and the appeal has been dismissed without adjudication on merits.
Now the assessee is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and in course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) submitted that since the appeal has not been admitted for hearing before the Ld. First Appellate Authority he prayed for condonation of delay of 28 days on medical grounds and prayed for an opportunity of hearing on merits so that he may explain his case on the legal issues involved therein.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”) relied on the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority but has no objection if the matter is remanded back to be considered afresh and adjudicated upon on the grounds contained in Form No. 35.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the assessee was abroad and has arrived India on 15.06.2024 ( as per passport endorsement ) and was under medical treatment, in support of which he has filed documentary evidences. Thereafter the appeal has been filed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority on 21.07.2024 which was belated by 28 days. Considering the medical issues stated , we condone delay of 28 ( twenty eight days), and, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. First Appellate Authority for admitting the appeal for hearing on the grounds contained in Form No. 35 on merits and we also direct the assessee to file all documentary evidences and submissions in support of his contentions and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings.
The assessee will be allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice to be issued in e-mail ID in the portal and also in e-mail mentioned in Form No.35.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all legal issues are left open .
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA UDAYAN DAS GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated:19.06.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy to: LAXMAN KUMAR PATRO, 65B RED MIG FLATS, 1 1ST FLOOR, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110027, DELHI INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE 2 INFINITY TOWER RANGE CODE 85, VISAKHAPATNAM-530001, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026