GITAM SINGH,FIROZABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

ITA 602/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 September 2026AY 2013-143 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT decided to condone the delay of approximately 553 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation that he was a farmer, unaware of tax litigation, and dependent on his previous counsel who failed to act on his behalf. The Tribunal found the cause shown for the delay to be sufficient, supported by an uncontroverted affidavit. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. Furthermore, despite opportunities, the assessee remained unresponsive before the first appellate authority, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gitam Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC's order dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 553 days. The assessee attributed this delay to his previous counsel's failure to pursue the appeal and inform him of notices, stating he was unaware of the proceedings until receiving a communication from the department. He then engaged a new counsel, which consumed time. The ITAT condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation and affidavit. The assessment order itself was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of ignorance and reliance on his former counsel. (Question of fact) 2. Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent ex-parte order by the CIT(A) warrant a fresh assessment, given the assessee's claim of not being afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to his unawareness of tax litigation, his complete dependence on his previous counsel, and the former counsel's failure to pursue the appeal or inform him of notices. He stated that he only became aware of the appellate order upon physically receiving a communication from the department, after which he engaged a new counsel, leading to the delay. The assessee also contended that the assessment order was passed without affording him a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not explicitly record any contentions in the provided judgment. However, the judgment notes that the assessee remained unresponsive despite various opportunities given by the first appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)

Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 15.09.2026

PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed in appeal No NFAC/2012-13/10064139 by the 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. 2013-14, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex- parte.

At the very outset, it is noticed that this second appeal has been filed on 05.08.2026 by a delay of about 553 days. The assessee has prayed to condone the said delay through his delay condonation application, stating that he being a farmer was unaware of the tax litigation and was totally dependent on his previous counsel, who w

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →