SATNAM SINGH ,TARN TARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , TARN TARAN

ITA 958/ASR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 September 2026AY 2017-20186 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Satnam Singh, a non-resident individual, is the subject of this appeal against an order dated 24.02.2026 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147, alleging income escapement, as departmental information indicated income had arisen in India. The AO noted deposits totaling Rs.1,68,59,117/- in various bank accounts and, due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices, completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, adding Rs.2,03,76,195/-. The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed in limine under Section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee sought condonation of a 95-day delay in filing the present appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 95-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. Regarding the primary issue, the Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority's dismissal of the assessee's appeal in limine on a technical ground (non-payment of advance tax) without providing an opportunity to explain the non-liability was a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal reasoned that before dismissing the appeal ex-parte, the First Appellate Authority should have allowed the assessee to explain his position regarding advance tax payment. Therefore, the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority was set aside. The issues arising in the appeal were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to comply with statutory notices and cooperate in the assessment proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned, turning on Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without deciding on merits, based on the assessee's alleged failure to discharge advance tax liability under Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that as a non-resident with minimal Indian income (only a small interest income), there was no liability to pay advance tax. He also claimed that communication gaps led to non-compliance with AO's notices. Furthermore, the assessee contended that the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity to explain why Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's learned Departmental Representative supported the First Appellate Authority's order, stating that repeated non-compliance compelled departmental authorities to proceed ex-parte and make additions based on available information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 249(4)(b),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Per: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 24.02.2026 of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), for the Assessment Year 2017-

18.2.

The grievance of the assessee is against ex-parte disposal of his appeal in limine, without deciding on merits. The assessee has also sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2 Asst. Year: 2017-18

3.

There is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before us.

4.

Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and admit

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 139(1)

All 7,954 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →