VIJAY JAJOO,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

ITA 567/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal was satisfied that the clerical mistake in the authorized representative's office, leading to the papers being misplaced, was a reasonable ground for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the Tribunal emphasized that the object of procedural rules and limitation periods is to advance the cause of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days. Consequently, the impugned order of the NFAC dated June 16, 2026, was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the NFAC for passing a fresh order on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijay Jajoo, filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 48 days in filing. The assessee had explained the delay as a clerical mistake by their authorized representative, where papers were misplaced in a wrong folder. The assessment order was dated March 28, 2025, and received by the appellant on April 2, 2025. The appeal was due on May 1, 2025. The assessee paid the appeal fees of Rs. 1,000 on April 3, 2025. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard the appeal against the NFAC's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC was sufficiently explained and should be condoned, thereby allowing the appeal to be heard on merits? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused by a clerical mistake in the office of the authorized representative, where the relevant papers were kept in a wrong folder. This constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay, and the appeal should be heard on merits. The assessee relied on the principle that procedural rules are meant to advance justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10502058 by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner of Income Tax), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A).

2.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the various grounds including the one that ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

Heard ld. representati

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 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →