RAM SWAROOP,HATHRAS UTTAR PRADESH vs. WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

ITA 601/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 September 2026AY 2020-213 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation regarding health issues and communication lapses sufficient. Regarding the ex-parte order by the CIT(A), the Tribunal acknowledged that the first appellate authority had provided 11 opportunities to the assessee, which were not utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the original assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144. Despite the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment in accordance with law. The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ram Swaroop, filed an appeal against an order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 66 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing severe health issues and a lack of timely communication from his counsel regarding electronically served notices. The assessee claimed to have become aware of the appellate order only upon receiving a recovery notice. The ITAT condoned the delay, treating the cause shown as sufficient. The assessee's grounds of appeal included the contention that the CIT(A) passed the order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The ITAT noted that the first appellate authority had granted 11 opportunities to the assessee, which were not availed. The assessment order itself was also passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be condoned? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing the appellate order ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's severe health condition and the failure of his counsel to promptly communicate electronically served notices, leading to the assessee's unawareness of the appellate order until a recovery notice was received. (Relied on medical certificate and affidavit). - The CIT(A) passed the appellate order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the ex-parte order. However, the Tribunal noted the revenue's representative was heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Anup Laddha, CA

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)

Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 15.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 601/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Swaroop, Vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(4), S/o Sovran Singh Nagala Moti, Income Tax Office, Aligarh Road, Mahow, Barwana Hathras-204101 Hathras-204212 PAN: CQBPS6280H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anup Laddha, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 15.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.09.2026 ORDER PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10503648 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2020-21, 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 05.08.2026 by a delay of about 66 days. The assessee has prayed to

ITA No.601/Agr/2026

condone the said delay through his delay condonation application, stating that due to severe health condition of the assessee (medical certificate attached) during the relevant period, the assessee could not coordinate with his counsel regarding tax matters and also assessee was served with the appellate notices electronically on the e-mail id of his counsel, who did not communicate the assessee regarding the notices sent on e-mail on time. It was only upon the receipt of the recovery notice that the assessee could get to know about the appellate order thus the appeal could not be filed on time. Prayed to condone the delay. Assessee’s application is supported by his uncontroverted affidavit. We treat the cause shown as sufficient and condone the said 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 appellate order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee stood rejected. Perused the records. Heard ld. representative for the appellant assessee and ld. Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue. 5. It transpires form the perusal of records that as many as 11 opportunities were given to the assessee by the first appellate authority during the first appellate stage. However, the assessee did not respond in 2 | P a g e

ITA No.601/Agr/2026

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. Further, we also note that the assessment order in this case was also passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to give one more opportunity to the assessee, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld. AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 15.09.2026

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

3 | P a g e

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →