GANESH MISHRA,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD2(2)(5)ETAWAH, ETAWAH

ITA 96/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 September 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ganesh Mishra, filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appellate Committee (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The NFAC, vide its order dated 03.12.2025, dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 112 days in filing. The assessee explained the delay by stating that the order appealed against was served on 28.03.2022, handed over to his counsel, and upon receiving a penalty notice later, the counsel requested the appeal of the assessment order. An affidavit from the counsel was enclosed. The NFAC did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, challenging the NFAC's order, inter alia, on the ground of not being afforded a proper opportunity of hearing.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of delay without condoning it. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the assessee, including the affidavit of the counsel, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay of 112 days in filing the first appeal before the NFAC. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the Tribunal emphasized that the object of procedural rules and limitation periods is to advance the cause of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 112 days. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the NFAC for passing an order afresh on merits, ensuring substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the NFAC was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine for a delay of 112 days in filing, without condoning the delay, under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was caused due to the time taken by the counsel to process the appeal after receiving the assessment order and subsequent penalty notice. The assessee relied on the affidavit of the counsel and contended that the reasons constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee also argued that the NFAC passed the order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the opportunity of hearing. However, the revenue was represented by its Senior Departmental Representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gargh, Adv
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 21.07.2026

PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10165066 by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner of Income Tax), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 112 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A).

2.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the various grounds including the one that ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

Adjournment application moved on behalf of th

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 249(2)

All 621 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →