DINESH YADAV,MOHRA SHAHNAGAR PANNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CHHATTARPUR, CHHATTARPUR

ITA 231/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 September 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine as time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC incorrectly calculated the delay by referencing the date of the assessment order rather than the date of receipt of the assessment order and demand notice by the assessee, which was 17/06/2024. The Tribunal found that the actual delay was only 78-79 days, as agreed by both parties. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the NFAC failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the delay, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte without sufficient evidence. Citing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors and the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach and the duty of appellate authorities to remit files for fresh adjudication when assessments are carried out without reference to evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment, directing the AO to reframe the assessment afresh on merits, considering evidential material, written submissions, and explanations from the assessee. The issue of the delay was to be adjudicated by the NFAC, but the Tribunal opted to remand to the AO for reframing the assessment on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dinesh Yadav, is in appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20/06/2025. This order confirmed an assessment order dated 11/03/2023, passed by the National Faceless e-Assistance Centre (AO) under sections 147 and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The AO had made additions of ₹1,96,39,732/- as unexplained money under section 9A and ₹6,836/- for variation in contractual receipts. The assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC on 04/10/2024. The NFAC dismissed this appeal in limine as time-barred by 543 days, noting the absence of a condonation petition or affidavit explaining the delay. The assessee received the assessment order along with the demand notice on 17/06/2024. The appeal before the NFAC was filed on 04/10/2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred, considering the actual delay in filing the appeal was significantly less than what was computed based on the assessment order date, and whether the NFAC violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to explain the delay? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the NFAC erred in calculating the delay by referencing the assessment order date instead of the date of receipt of the assessment order and demand notice (17/06/2024). - The actual delay was only 78-79 days, not 543 days. - The NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without providing an opportunity to explain the delay, thus violating the principles of natural justice. - The assessment itself was ex-parte and conducted without evidence. - The assessee relied on the principles laid down in CIT Vs Maskara Tea Estate [1981, 6 Taxman 191 (Gau)], Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors [2023, LiveLaw (SC) 572], and CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. [2015, 231 Taxman 384 (Del)]. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records that the rival parties commonly assisted the bench with computation and harmoniously submitted that the actual delay was 78-79 days. However, the NFAC computed the delay based on the assessment order date, leading to a dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9A,Section 144,Section 147,Section 246A,Section 249,Section 250,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, MP

Before: HON’BLE SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Alok Dhingra [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr N M Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077289316(1) dt. 20/06/2025

passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld.

NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of assessment order

dt. 11/03/2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the National Faceless e-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent

to assessment year 2018-19 [‘AY’ hereinafter].

ITAT-Jabalpur Dinesh Yadhav Vs NFeAC ITA No. 231/JAB/2025 AY: 2018-19 This appeal deals with the legitimacy of action of first 2. appellate

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →