SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RANCHI, RANCHI

ITA 242/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 September 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee, whereas by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also understand their mistakes. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the NFAC for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the NFAC and provide all relevant documents and evidences. The Tribunal did not decide on the specific grounds related to residential status, salary income, TDS credit, or exempt foreign salary income, as these were to be adjudicated by the NFAC upon restoration. The operative direction was to restore the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sandeep Kumar Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on technical grounds of delay in filing the appeal, without considering the merits of the case. The assessee contended that the NFAC erred by not providing an opportunity for oral hearing via video conference as per the E-Appeal Scheme, 2023, and that the assessment order was passed hastily without proper examination of documents, including the assessee's employer, duration of stay in India, residential status, salary income, and TDS credit. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the grounds relate to salary income and TDS. The procedural history involves the assessee filing an appeal with the NFAC, which was dismissed due to delay, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely on technical grounds of delay, without condoning the delay and adjudicating on the merits of the case, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the E-Appeal Scheme, 2023, as per grounds 1 and 7. 2. Whether the NFAC erred by not properly examining documents, the assessee's employer, duration of stay in India, residential status (NRI vs. Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident), salary income, and TDS credit, as per grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Assessee's Contentions: - The NFAC dismissed the appeal on technical grounds of delay (173 days) without considering the merits, violating natural justice and the E-Appeal Scheme, 2023. - Documents were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer and NFAC. - Residential status was wrongly recorded as 'Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident' instead of NRI. - Salary income was assessed incorrectly, and full credit for TDS deducted under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not given. - Exempt foreign salary income was wrongly brought to tax. - The assessee was not provided an opportunity for oral hearing via video conference. - The assessment order was passed in haste without adhering to Faceless assessment procedures. - The assessee requested an opportunity to file a rectified/revised Income Tax Return and for assessment based on fresh computation and ITR. - The matter should be restored to the NFAC for readjudication on merits after condoning the delay. Revenue's Contentions: - The ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). - If the issues are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), exemplary costs must be levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 192,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 Appellant: Shri Vinay Goenka, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 10/09/2026Pronounced: 25/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 27/03/2026 for the A.Y. 2023-24 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing the Order, in the way it was passed, and the Order dismissing the appeal solely on Technical Grounds of delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the merits of the case and without granting proper opportunity of being heard and without providing opportunity of Oral Hearing through video Conf

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 192

All 853 judgments and leading authorities on Section 192 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →