What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that dismissing the appeal for delay without proper condonation, after having called for submissions on merits, was not in accordance with law. The tribunal also noted that the assessment order was passed under Section 144.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC without condoning a delay of 145 days, despite the assessee providing evidence of chronic illness. The NFAC had also initiated a hearing on merits before dismissing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether the assessment order passed under Section 144 was justified.

Ashok Kalicharan Kanojiya, Nagpur vs ITO | s.250, 144 | ITAT Nagpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, 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 06/10/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

ITA No. 644/NAG/2025 (Ashok Kalicharan Kanojiya) 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 145 days. We find that the assessee had taken a plea of chronic illness including hyper tension and filed evidences of same. However, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, had not found it sufficient reason to allow the condonation.

We further see from the impugned order that the assessee was issued notices to file submissions and assessee had filed submissions on merits also meaning thereby that National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, had initiated hearing on merits of the appeal, but subsequently relying varies judicial decisions, the appeal was dismissed without condonation of delay.

Ld. DR has heavily relied upon impugned order, but we are of the considered view that the same to be not in accordance with law. At one hand, there was a reasonable explanation of the delay duly supported by evidence, on the other hand Ld. CIT (A) called upon assessee to file

ITA No. 644/NAG/2025 (Ashok Kalicharan Kanojiya) submission on merits but dismissed the application for condonation of delay and same is not justified.

Further, we find that the contention was made on account of unexplained expenditure of a purchase of immovable property while Ld. Counsel submitted before us that in fact the assessee had gifted the property, however, the assessment order has been passed under Section 144 of the Act.

In the light of aforesaid, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the issues on merits to files of Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

In the result, 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

ITA No. 644/NAG/2025 (Ashok Kalicharan Kanojiya)

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

ASHOK KALICHARAN KANOJIYA,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(3), NAGPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments