HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION,JAMPUR, JAMPUR RAJMAHAL vs. ITO WARD 3(5), SAHIBGANJ, SAHIBGANJ

ITA 222/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 September 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay and noting the assessee's bona fide intent to pursue the appeal, evidenced by the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but did not appear. However, the Tribunal observed contradictions in the assessee's business nature and contract receipts. It also found that the Assessing Officer had not made independent inquiries to ascertain the source of the contract receipt of ₹11,85,86,475/- and that the 8% profit rate adopted by the AO lacked a rational basis. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Bench's directions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hindustan Construction, is an exporter, importer, and general order supplier who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, issuing a notice under Section 148 on 26/03/2021. The AO noted AIR/CIB information indicating receipts of ₹11,85,86,475/-. Despite partial compliance, the assessee failed to provide sufficient details to substantiate claimed expenses. Consequently, the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, assessing total income at ₹94,86,918/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 109 days, citing financial hardship and difficulty in obtaining documents. The assessee had deposited 20% of the disputed demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, given the assessee's reasons of financial hardship and difficulty in obtaining documents, and the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. Assessee's contention: The delay was not intentional or deliberate but due to bona fide reasons beyond their control. They demonstrated good faith by depositing the mandatory 20% of the disputed tax demand. The delay was not inordinate. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative objected to condoning the delay. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is sustainable, considering the alleged lack of independent inquiry by the AO regarding the source of contract receipts and the basis for adopting an 8% profit rate. Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Revenue's contention: Both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders because the assessee neither appeared nor filed requisite documents and evidence. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29/09/2026Pronounced: 30/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 21/01/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 98 days for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the facts that the said order was received by the appellant on 21/01/2025. The appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT ought to have been filed on or before 22/03/2025. However, due to delay in obtaining documents & financial hardship the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. The delay in filing the

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 →