R.B. TIMBER,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

ITA 665/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 October 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 72 days in filing the first appeal. The Tribunal took judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, which restored its order dated 23.03.2020 and extended the limitation period for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that parties should not be deprived of the opportunity to participate in justice dispensation. Therefore, the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, R.B. Timber, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, against an order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC (Delhi). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The original assessment order was passed on 27.04.2021 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 06.08.2021, with a delay of 72 days, for which no condonation application was filed. The ITAT noted that the delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which was subject to extension orders by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred, ignoring the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 regarding the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes (question of law and fact, concerning Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions (as understood from grounds of appeal and arguments): The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, failing to consider the Supreme Court's directions that extend the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the Department was represented by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. (DR), but it does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

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 SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10086479 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ 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. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal as time barred.

2.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on various grounds including one that the ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal as time barred in ignorance of Apex Court’s order dated 10.01.2022. 3. Adjournment application moved on behalf of the appellant assessee was rejected. Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assess

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →