ARPITA MATHEW ARUKAKKAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 581/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was not substantial and should have been condoned by the NFAC, especially considering the assessee had succeeded in a related quantum appeal which was restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was dismissed due to a delay of 32 days without condonation. The assessee argued the delay was due to unfamiliarity with the appeal procedure.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning a short delay, and if the penalty levied deserves deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 254

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 Sapan Usrethe, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

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 14/08/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

ITA No. 581/NAG/2025 (Arpita Mathew Arukakkal)

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 32 days. Ld. Counsel as apprised that vide order dated 10.10.2025 in ITA no. 501/NAG/2025, assessee has succeeded before this Tribunal in the quantum appeal wherein the issue has been restored to the files of Ld. Assessing Officer with directions to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh on merits. The delay in filing the appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, was not of substantial period. NFAC had expressed in the condonation application, that the delay was for the reason that the assessee was not aware of the procedure to be adopted to challenge the impugned order.

3.

Considering the aforesaid as the delay is not of substantial period, the NFAC should have condone the delay after the order dated 10.10.2025 of this Tribunal, order giving effect under Section 254 of the Act has been passed. The impugned penalty as levied deserves to be deleted.

ITA No. 581/NAG/2025 (Arpita Mathew Arukakkal)

4.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The impugned penalty is deleted.

Order pronounced in open Court on 16.06.2026 Sd/– Sd/– ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 16/06/2026 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →