ANITA HANUMAN NIKODE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 639/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient. The NFAC erred by not condoning the delay and passing an order on merits. The impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 730 days. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) passed an order without condoning this delay. The assessee believed penalty proceedings had become infructuous after the quantum appeal was set aside.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned by the NFAC. Whether the NFAC erred in passing an order without addressing the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A

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: Ms. Shristi Pande, CA
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) (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 22/08/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.

ITA No. 639/NAG/2025 (Anita Hanuman Nikode)

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order has been passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, without condoning the delay of 730 days.

3.

Ld. DR has submitted that delay was not sufficiently explained and there is no error in the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.

4.

We find that in para 1.2, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has reproduced the affidavit of the assessee in which reasons were cited for delay and considering the same and the submissions of Ld. Counsel, we find that the assessee was under an impression that as quantum appeal has been challenged and on 08.10.2024. Ld. CIT(A) had passed an order setting aside the assessment order to Assessing Officer and penalty proceedings under Section 270A had become infructuous. The Assessee had not filed appeal against the impugned penalty order under Section 27(A)(1)(d) of the Act.

5.

We find that the assessee is an individual and the reasons which were mentioned in the affidavit, were 2

ITA No. 639/NAG/2025 (Anita Hanuman Nikode)

sufficient to benefit the assessee, however National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, had failed to condone the delay.

6.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we set aside the impugned order of NFAC and restore the issues on merits to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to give afresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order afresh.

7.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →