MAHAMUD AKHTAR,ETAWAH vs. LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), ETAWAH, ETAWAH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 188/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 April 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a significant delay (342 days in one case and 513 days in another). The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals in limine due to the rejection of the condonation of delay applications.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the significant delay in filing, and if the delay caused by lack of knowledge of notice warrants condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 179 & 188/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahmud Akhtar Vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(5) Indian Hosiery Store 181, Ahmad Raza market Ramganj Etawah – 206 001 Etawah – 206 001 PAN : AFXPA8749N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.04.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. The facts of both these appeals are almost identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are being decided by this common order. ITA No. 179/Agr/2026 This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.12.2025 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2016-17/10292950 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year A.Y. 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 2. Perused the records and heard Ld. Representative for the appellant assessee and Ld. Sr. DR for the respondent revenue.

ITA No. 179&188/Agr/2026

3.

At the very outset, Ld. representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal in limine by rejecting assessee’s prayer for the condonation of the delay of 342 days caused in filing first appeal, despite bonafide cause of lack of knowledge of notice. Prayed to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for deciding a fresh on merit after condoning the delay caused in filing first appeal before learned CIT(A). 4. Ld. Sr DR for the respondent revenue supported the impugned order. 5. We notice that the assessee prayed before Ld. CIT(A) for the condonation of delay caused in filing first appeal on the ground that the delay was caused due to lack of knowledge of electronically issued notice as the assessee was not able to run computer/smartphone etc. It was only when assessee received notice dated 12.10.2022 from the department, he came to know about all the proceedings. He contacted Income Tax practitioner for necessary action and the delay was not willful. 6. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 342 days. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. 7. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 342 days caused in filing first appeal before ld. CIT(A) and to restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the case on merit. We order accordingly. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 179&188/Agr/2026

ITA No. 188/Agr/2026 This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.12.2025 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2016-17/10292063 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year A.Y. 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 8. The delay in filing first appeal in this case was 513 days. The reasons shown by the assessee in this case were similar as shown in first appeal related to ITA No. 179/Agr/2026. Our findings given in ITA No. 179/Agr/2026 shall mutatis mutandis apply in this appeal also. This appeal is thus liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, ITA No. 179/Agr/2026 & 188/Agr/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned orders each dated 25.12.2025 are set aside. The delay caused in filing both the first appeals before first appellant authority i.e. learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellant authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced on 22.04.2026 Sd- Sd- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:22.04.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →