NOHAR YADAV,MANDIR HASOUD, TEH. ARANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(2), RAIPUR, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

ITA 638/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 October 2026AY 2018-1910 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nohar Yadav, is a non-filer of Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on information that the assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 1,06,81,000/- and deposited Rs. 9,74,000/- cash in his bank account. The assessee did not respond to the notice under Section 148A. During the reopened assessment, the AO issued notices, but the assessee did not comply. The AO completed the assessment under Section 144, taxing the entire sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) and also adding bank transactions aggregating Rs. 12,27,000/-, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 1,19,08,000/-. Penalties under Section 270A (Rs. 18,04,046/-) and Section 271AAC(1) (Rs. 94,786/-) were also levied. The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with substantial delays (1069 days for the quantum appeal and 911 days for penalty appeals). The CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation petitions, citing lack of sufficient cause and relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, and dismissed the appeals as non-maintainable.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that deciding the fate of condonation petitions without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is against the principle of natural justice. The right of appeal is a valuable substantive right, not merely procedural, and should be viewed liberally. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a specific opportunity of being heard on the issue of limitation before non-admitting the appeals. Considering the affidavit of the erstwhile counsel admitting the delay and the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal found that the assessee's petitions for delay condonation in all three cases needed fresh consideration by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside all three impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation petitions afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If the condonation petitions are found satisfactory, the CIT(A) should then decide the appeals on merit. The Tribunal refrained from commenting on the merits of the additions or the claim for deduction under Section 54B, as these were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the assessee's petitions for condonation of delay of 1069 days in the quantum appeal and 911 days in the penalty appeals, thereby dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and principles of natural justice). Assessee's contentions: - The delay in filing the first appeals was due to the erstwhile counsel, Mr. Subrat Kumar Patra, whose affidavit admitting the delay was furnished. This affidavit was not available before the CIT(A). - The assessee, an agriculturist with limited education (Class VIII), was unaware of income tax proceedings due to agricultural income only and reliance on his counsel. - Non-compliance during assessment and penalty proceedings was due to the faceless scheme and the assessee's dependence on his counsel, not being computer-savvy. - The assessee was not aware of the adverse assessment order until physical penalty notices were received. - On merits, the entire sale consideration of the immovable property was taxed without allowing indexed cost of acquisition, and the assessee's share was only 1/7th. The addition of Rs. 12,27,000/- from bank transactions was questioned. Deduction under Section 54B was also claimed. Revenue's contentions: - The delays in filing the first appeals were extraordinary, and the assessee had not provided day-to-day justification for the delay. - The assessee was arguing on merits rather than confining to the reasonable cause of delay. - Blaming the erstwhile counsel did not justify the extraordinary delay. - No material was brought on record to demonstrate that Mr. Subrat Kumar Patra was tasked with filing the appeals. - Reliance was placed on Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 361) and Salil Kumar Banerjee v. CIT (190 ITR 323 SC).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CA
Hearing: 25/09/2026

Per Bench : These three appeals, one quantum and two penalties, are interlinked as these are originated from the same assessment order. Therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

2.

These appeals for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2018-19 filed by the assessee are directed against three separate orders, even 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 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →