RAJ KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 522/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal, treating the cause shown by the assessee as sufficient in the interest of justice, given the uncontroverted affidavit. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had passed the impugned order ex-parte because the assessee did not respond to notices issued on 18.08.2025, 15.09.2025, and 06.10.2025. While acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for passing an order afresh on merits in accordance with law. The Tribunal directed the first appellate authority to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raj Kumar Jain, filed an appeal against an order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the NFAC (referred to as Commissioner of Income Tax) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The present appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 132 days. The assessee attributed this delay to hearing notices being sent to the email ID of his previous counsel, which he claims he did not receive. He became aware of the appellate order only on 01.05.2023 when his new counsel received an 'intimation for enablement of communication window'. The assessee's delay condonation application was supported by an uncontroverted affidavit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused because hearing notices were sent to the previous counsel's email ID, and the assessee only became aware of the NFAC's order on 01.05.2023 when his new counsel received a communication window intimation. The assessee relied on an uncontroverted affidavit to support this claim and argued for condonation in the interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding the delay condonation application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 Prakash Chandra Parwal, CA
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10236720 by the NFAC (hereinafter

ITA No. 522/Agr/2026

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. 2018-19, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that this second appeal has been filed on 11.06.2026 by a delay of about 132 days. Assessee has filed delay condonation application stating that due to hearing notices being sent to the e-mail ID of his previous counsel, the assessee did not receive the notices. It was only on 01.05.2023, when the assessee’s new counsel received at his e-mail id the ‘intimation for enablement of communication window’, the assessee could get to know about the appellate order, thus the appeal could not be filed within time. Assessee’s application is supported with uncontroverted affidavit, in the interest of justice, we treat the cause shown for the delay as sufficient and condone the delay caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

3.

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.

4.

Heard ld. representative for the appellant assessee and ld. Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue. 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 522/Agr/2026

5.

It transpires form the perusal of records that notices on 18.08.2025, 15.09.2025 and 06.10.2025 were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee during the first appellate stage. However, the assessee did not respond in compliance thereof. The ld. CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass impugned order ex-parte. The non-cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 522/Agr/2026

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 02.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 30.09.2026 *Aks, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →