RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(2), JPR, JAIPUR

ITA 714/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 October 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ram Chandra Choudhary, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, against an order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)). The appeal was filed with a delay of 53 days. The assessee, a senior citizen and agriculturist from a rural area, claimed the delay was due to not receiving the appellate order on the email ID used for all prior communications, leading to a bona fide belief that further notices would be sent to the same address. The counsel discovered the order in March 2026 while checking the portal, prompting the immediate filing of the appeal. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, citing laxity. The ITAT condoned the delay, citing the assessee's compliance with prior notices and the bona fide nature of the non-awareness of the order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had complied with all notices during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), and the delay occurred due to a bona fide non-awareness of the impugned order, which was not received on the counsel's email. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized that 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, and that technical considerations should not outweigh the cause of justice. The Tribunal found that the delay was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had remained non-compliant with notices before the Assessing Officer and had made no submissions on the merits before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order. Given that the assessee had remained unheard throughout, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing and then pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17, is liable to be condoned under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on sufficient cause. Assessee's Contention: The delay was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control, caused by the non-receipt of the appellate order on the counsel's email, leading to a bona fide belief that further communications would be sent to the same address. The assessee is a senior citizen and agriculturist, and substantive justice favors condonation. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. Revenue's Contention: The reason provided by the assessee reflects laxity in pursuing the appeal remedy, and therefore, the delay ought not to be condoned. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking provisions of Sections 147 to 151 and confirming the addition of Rs. 90,04,708/- on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) to present arguments on the merits of the case, as the proceedings before the lower authorities were ex parte and the principles of natural justice were not followed. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Hearing: 01.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 24.11.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 Ram Chandra Choudhary

2.

The appeal is noted to be delayed for filing by 53 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed before us, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:-

1.

That appellant is a senior citizen & agriculturist belongs to a rural area.

2.

That this Present appeal filed before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench is against the or

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →