NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GUWAHATI

ITA 349/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 September 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 522 days in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC is directed to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The issue of whether the NFAC correctly decided the grounds of appeal on merits was not decided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded. The operative direction is to remand the case for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nirmal Kumar Jain, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated October 3, 2024. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. There was a significant delay of 522 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to a notice of hearing being sent to an incorrect email address, leading to their unawareness of the first appellate proceedings and the impugned order. The assessee claimed the delay was not intentional but for bonafide reasons. The Revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The ITAT condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The original assessment order was passed on March 30, 2022, under Section 147 read with Section 144B. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal against this assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 522 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's contention of receiving hearing notices on a wrong email ID and the revenue's argument of insufficient cause. (Question of fact and law) Assessee's contentions: - The delay was caused by a notice of hearing being sent to the wrong email ID, making the assessee unaware of the proceedings and the impugned order. - The delay was not intentional but for bonafide reasons. - The ITAT should condone the delay based on the principle of substantial justice, as laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). - The NFAC passed an ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice. - The NFAC did not decide all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Revenue's contentions: - There is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. - The assessee did not file any submissions before the NFAC despite sufficient opportunities. - The NFAC rightly passed the order, which requires no interference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI “DB” BENCH

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Kanishk Rana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani
Hearing: 30.09Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.10.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 522 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay contending that the notice of hearing has been issued to the wrong e-mail ID of the Assessee, therefore, Assessee could not participate in the first Appellate proceedings and the Assessee was unaware of passing the order impugned and came to kno

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →