GANESH MISHRA,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD2(2)(5)ETAWAH, ETAWAH

ITA 96/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 September 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the NFAC's dismissal of the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of delay, without condoning it, was not in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the assessee for the 112-day delay, which involved the order being served on March 28, 2022, handed to the counsel, and subsequent communication issues leading to the appeal filing, constituted a sufficient cause. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the ITAT emphasized that procedural rules, including limitation periods, are intended to advance the cause of justice. Therefore, the ITAT condoned the delay of 112 days in filing the first appeal. Consequently, the impugned order of the NFAC dated December 3, 2025, was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the NFAC to pass an order afresh on merits, ensuring substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ganesh Mishra, filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appellate Committee (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 112 days in filing. The assessee explained the delay by stating that the order appealed against was served on March 28, 2022, and handed over to his counsel. After a significant gap, upon receiving a penalty notice, the assessee contacted the counsel who then requested the appeal of the assessment order. An affidavit from the counsel was enclosed. The NFAC did not find this explanation sufficient to condone the delay. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) argued that the NFAC passed the order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appellate Committee (NFAC) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 112 days in filing the appeal, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the NFAC passed the impugned order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee contended that the explanation provided for the delay, involving the handing over of the order to the counsel and subsequent communication issues, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors to emphasize that procedural rules are meant to advance justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gargh, Adv
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 21.07.2026

PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10165066 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. 2015-16, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 112 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.

Adjournment application moved on behalf of th

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 →