SATISH CHANDRA HUF,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAINPURI

ITA 400/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 2246 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the ground of rejecting the delay condonation application. The assessee's delay was attributed to the Karta's lack of familiarity with tax laws and reliance on an accountant who allegedly failed to monitor the ITBA portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits due to a delay in filing, and if the assessee's reasons constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,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 Dhramendra Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10540091 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. 2017-18, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that this second appeal has been filed on 06.05.2026 by a delay of about 35 days. The assessee has prayed to condone the said delay through his delay condonation application, stating that he was seriously ill during the relevant period i.e. 20.01.2026 to 15.03.2026. The asse

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

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →