MUJIBUL KHAN,TAMLUK vs. ITO, WARD 27(3),, HALDIA

ITA 508/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's submissions regarding lack of electronic communication and professional dependency, and applying the liberal interpretation of "sufficient casus" as laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. Regarding the substantive appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, and the assessee had not participated in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on their merits. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee had not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, directing the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee to participate in the proceedings without fail. The ratio decidendi is that where an appellate order is ex-parte and does not decide all grounds on merits due to non-participation of the assessee, even if the assessee had compliance issues before lower authorities, restoration for de-novo assessment is appropriate to ensure substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mujibul Khan, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 11.04.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21. There was a delay of 225 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to not receiving electronic communications from the Department and subsequent discovery of the order upon receiving a letter from the ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia. The assessee argued that the delay was bona fide and due to lack of electronic access and professional dependency. The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The ITAT condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The original assessment order was passed on 12.09.2022 under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on 11.04.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient casus" under limitation statutes. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was not willful or deliberate but due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons, including lack of electronic access, professional dependency, and a strong case on merits. They relied on the principle of liberal interpretation of "sufficient casus" to advance substantial justice, citing Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and sought dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay and laches. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) order dated 11.04.2025, passed ex-parte, violated principles of natural justice and failed to decide all grounds of appeal on merits, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that they could not make proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), and that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal, resulting in an ex-parte order in violation of natural justice. They sought to have the appeal allowed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee was a chronic defaulter who failed to make proper compliance before the lower authorities, and therefore, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) were in accordance with law and required no interference. They sought dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Sukumar Mandal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 11.04.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 225 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“That the appellant did not receive any communication issued electronically by the Department. As a result, no information was received regarding the Appellate order. The appellant further submits that no notice or order was ever received through post or by physical delivery. The appel

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →