SOHIDUL ISLAM,ASSAM vs. ITO NAGAON, NAGAON

ITA 556/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 October 2026AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while it is expected for an assessee to file appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona fide and beyond the assessee's control, it can be construed as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which clarifies that delay supported by justifiable reasons should be viewed liberally to achieve substantial justice. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 423 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). The assessee will be provided an opportunity of being heard before the de-novo assessment order is passed. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sahidul Islam, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal against an assessment order dated 31.01.2025. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Nagaon, under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 423 days in filing. The assessee contended that the delay was due to his limited education, lack of knowledge of tax procedures, non-receipt of earlier notices, and the ex-parte nature of the assessment order. The ITAT heard the Departmental Representative as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 423 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), as required under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions (as recorded in the judgment): The assessee argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances. He is a small-scale retailer with limited education and knowledge of income tax procedures. He did not receive earlier notices and was unaware of the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. Upon learning about the assessment order in April 2025, he took time to understand the matter, collect documents, and seek professional advice. Therefore, the delay was due to reasonable cause and not negligence or malafide intention. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue (Ld. Departmental Representative) vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 423 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and thus the Ld. CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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, 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 18.06.2026passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 31.01.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.01.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 18.06.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Sohidul Islam; A.Y: 2017-18 Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.06.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

3.

None appeared for the

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →