ALOK PAL ,ETAWAH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

ITA 723/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the delay of approximately 950 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that the object of procedural law, including limitation periods, is to advance the cause of justice, and substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the ITAT emphasized that procedural law should not be an obstruction but an aid to justice, and courts should be able to meet extraordinary situations for the ends of justice. Therefore, the Tribunal found it just and proper to condone the delay. 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, with a direction to ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alok Pal, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, against an order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (Delhi). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal, which was filed against an assessment order dated 27.09.2022, on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The first appeal was filed on 03.12.2025, approximately 950 days after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. The assessee attributed the delay to the prolonged illness and subsequent death of his father, followed by a period of distress. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not represented at the hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of approximately 950 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the assessee's stated reasons of his father's prolonged illness, hospitalization, and subsequent death causing distress. Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused due to the prolonged illness and hospitalization of the assessee's father, and after his death, the assessee remained disturbed. Upon being approached by an Income Tax Inspector for recovery, the assessee contacted his lawyer and filed the appeal belatedly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Department was represented by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR, but does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments regarding the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10536662 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 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. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation.

2.

At the very outset, we find that the first appeal was filed before ld CIT(A) on 03.12.2025 against the assessment order dated 27.09.2022 by a delay of about 950 days. The ground taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) was that the said delay was caused due to prolonged illness/hospit

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 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →