RAJ KUMAR YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO MAINPURI, MAINPURI

ITA 547/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 September 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before it. Considering the facts stated in the affidavit, particularly the serious illness and subsequent demise of the person entrusted with handling the assessee's tax and appellate matters, the Tribunal found these to be exceptional, unavoidable, and unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the delay of 847 days was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte after issuing multiple notices to which no response was received. In the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raj Kumar Yadav, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The present appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 847 days. The assessee attributed this delay to the serious illness and subsequent demise of his advocate and senior accountant, Late Mr. Raj Kumar, who was handling all his tax and appellate matters. The ITAT considered an affidavit filed by the assessee explaining these circumstances.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 847 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, considering the circumstances explained in the assessee's affidavit? 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay of 847 days was due to the prolonged serious illness and subsequent demise of Late Mr. Raj Kumar, who was solely responsible for managing the assessee's tax and appellate matters. This unforeseen event caused a complete disruption in communication, leading to the assessee being unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A) and consequently, the appeal being dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that the delay was not deliberate or due to negligence and that substantial injustice would be caused if the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds. The assessee relied on the affidavit to demonstrate sufficient cause and requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Mr. Rizwan Ismail, CA
Hearing: 28.09.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.12.2023 passed in appeal No. CIT(APPEALS) 1, AGRA/10489/2019- 20 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ 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 the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex- parte.

2.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that there is a delay of 847 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 08.07.2026 in respect of the delay for filing the appeal, which is reproduced as under : “ I, RAJ KUMAR YAD

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →