SHASHI KUMAR CHOUDHARY,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

ITA 458/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 September 2026AY 2021-20224 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing the appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The Tribunal reasoned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that delay should be viewed liberally when supported by justifiable reasons, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes that delay, when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for substantial justice. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed orders without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh on their merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23 was also remanded along with the quantum appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shashi Kumar Choudhary, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for assessment years (A.Ys.) 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The appeals were against quantum proceedings for A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22, and penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2022-23. The assessee faced delays of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 respectively. The assessee's accountant, responsible for IT compliances, discontinued work due to ill health and personal difficulties, leading to a lack of handover of portal credentials and case documents. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the appeal dismissal until contacted by the Income Tax Department regarding outstanding demand. None appeared for the assessee before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 160, 225, and 226 days in filing the appeals for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 respectively, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the orders passed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the assessee and without deciding all grounds of appeal on merits, require interference by the Tribunal, concerning principles of natural justice and the mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as none appeared. The delay was attributed to the accountant's sudden discontinuation of work due to ill health and personal difficulties, resulting in a lack of handover of crucial portal credentials and case documents, making the assessee unaware of the appeal dismissal. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Ld. DR, argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and sought dismissal of the appeals on grounds of delay and laches. The Revenue also contended that since the assessee did not participate in the first appellate proceedings, the authorities below rightly passed the impugned orders, which require no interference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

1961

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 Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, CIT, DR

Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The above captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 29.09.2025 for the A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22 in quantum proceedings and the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17.09.2025 for the A.Ys. 2022-23 in penalty proceedings.

Since the above Appeals are filed by the single Assessee, having identical issues to be decided, the above Appeals are heard together and decided in this common order.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the captioned Appeal, we deem it

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.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →