MOHD. ABRAR,BULANDSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHAR

ITA 8343/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and plausible. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice on the assessee, as the assessee had opted for service other than by email. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, emphasizing a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice and avoid meritorious matters being thrown out. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo assessment. The assessee was to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of making submissions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohd. Abrar, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2016-17. This appeal was filed with a delay of 589 days. The assessee attributed this delay to non-service of notices and the assessment order. The assessee had opted for service of notices other than by email, preferring traditional methods due to being a village resident and not computer literate. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on grounds of being time-barred. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT is against this ex-parte order of the CIT(A), dated 17.10.2025. The ITAT noted that the appeal before it was also time-barred by 239 days, for which the assessee filed a condonation application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 589 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is to be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of non-service of notices and assessment order, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The assessee contended that the delay was bonafide and caused by the failure of the revenue to serve notices through the preferred mode, leading to non-receipt of the assessment order. The assessee relied on the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court judgments. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against condonation of delay before the ITAT. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is to be set aside and the matter remanded for denovo assessment, considering the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 282,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar. Sr. DR

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 17.10.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. This appeal is time barred by 239 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. A perusal of application reveals that the delay in filing of appeal is attribu

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 282

All 613 judgments and leading authorities on Section 282 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →