BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(1), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

ITA 210/ALLD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 September 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, is challenging orders from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The assessee, registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, failed to file returns for these years. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened cases under section 147, issuing notices under section 148. The assessee did not respond. The AO obtained bank deposit details, totaling significant sums (e.g., Rs.19,38,31,708/- for AY 2015-16). As the assessee failed to explain the source of these deposits, the AO made best judgment assessments under section 144/144B, adding the amounts as unexplained income under section 69A. The assessee's appeals to the first appellate authority were dismissed in limine due to delay.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts of the cases, held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal restored the files to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case and produce necessary evidence for the impugned transactions. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders based on available material, even if ex-parte. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeals in limine due to delay, and the AO had made additions ex-parte. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of procedural dismissal for delay, especially where substantial issues of assessment are pending, and where the assessee claims genuine reasons for delay and lack of opportunity, a restorative approach in the interest of substantial justice is warranted. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, and 2019-20, caused by inadvertence and oversight, constitutes 'sufficient cause' under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, warranting condonation. The assessee argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control and that litigants should not suffer for staff mistakes, citing Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. The assessee also contended that the assessment order was served late, making the appeal filed within the extended period. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against condonation, but objected to restoration of appeals. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without considering their merits, thereby depriving the assessee of a statutory right of appeal and violating principles of natural justice. The assessee argued that the dismissal was mechanical and contrary to the interest of substantial justice. The revenue argued for dismissal of the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3,Section 12AA,Section 147,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(3),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Kaushalendra Tewari, CIT(DR)

PER BENCH:

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the respective orders, all dated 09.09.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2.0 Since the facts and the issues involved in the above captioned appeals are almost identical, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.

ITA Nos.208 to 211/ALLD/2025 3.0 First, we will deal with the issues involved in the case of the assessee in ITA No.208/Alld/2025 for assessment year 2015- 16.

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 3

All 264 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →