JIPIN JINI,ITANAGAR vs. ITO WARD - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

ITA 502/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 September 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 9,14,76,324/- as undisclosed income from the sale of goods to BPCL, which was not shown in the computation of income. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee failed to produce evidence due to not obtaining valid service of statutory notices, leading to non-compliance and a lack of awareness of the assessment order. To meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order based on available materials. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jipin Jini, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2023-2024. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed 127 days late. The assessee acknowledged the delay but did not provide a reasonable cause for it. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering its merits, citing insufficient cause for condonation of the delay and the assessee's negligent attitude, in accordance with Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard. The revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide explanations or supporting documents before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2023-2024 is condonable under Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard, and that the delay occurred because the assessee was unaware of the assessment order being passed. The assessee sought to set aside the order of the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to offer any explanation or supporting documents for the grounds of appeal before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and therefore, the order of the revenue authorities should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, DB, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

1 Jipin Jini National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.07.2026 passed for Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The appeal is time barred by 127 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals

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 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →