KEITHELLAKPAM BABINA DEVI,IMPHAL vs. ITO WARD 2, IMPHAL

ITA 549/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 October 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that while the assessee is expected to file appeals on time, delays with bona fide reasons beyond the assessee's control can be construed as sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The issue of the assessment order's merits was expressly left undecided by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Keithellakpam Babina Devi, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC's order, dated 06.08.2026, had dismissed the assessee's first appeal against an assessment order dated 20.03.2024. The dismissal was on grounds of delay in filing the first appeal before the NFAC. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed the first appeal before the NFAC with a delay of 216 days. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was heard virtually at Kolkata. The assessee was not represented at the ITAT hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 216 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause, warranting condonation? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 246A and principles of natural justice). Contentions: Assessee: The delay was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, unawareness of the legal remedy under Section 246A, and not fully understanding the implications of the penalty. The assessee has now obtained professional advice and is filing with diligence. Revenue: There was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 216 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on delay and latches.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, CIT DR
Hearing: 01.10.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 06.08.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act on 20.03.2024 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 20.03.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 06.08.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Keithellakpam Babina Devi; A.Y: 2022-23 Assessee on delay in latches. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →