BAIJU ROY,RAJAPUR PUL, PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 436/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 October 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal before it, considering the reasons provided. Regarding the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the delay was indeed 27 days, not 2607 days as erroneously stated by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned this 27-day delay, setting aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that procedural errors, such as miscalculation of delay, should not prevent an appeal from being heard on its merits, and appellate authorities have the discretion to condone reasonable delays to ensure justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Baiju Roy, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. There was a delay of 191 days in filing this appeal before the ITAT, which the Tribunal condoned. The original assessment order by the Assessing Officer included an addition of Rs. 1,25,05,763/- to the income from long-term capital gain. The assessee had previously filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 27 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed this appeal in limine without condoning the delay, reportedly mistaking the delay to be 2607 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal before it? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine due to a mistaken calculation of delay, and should the delay of 27 days before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the principles of condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) was only 27 days, not 2607 days as mistakenly recorded. They submitted that the delay was unintentional and requested condonation to allow the appeal to be decided on merits. The assessee relied on the principle that procedural delays should not defeat substantive justice. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH: PATNA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Gopalan Gurusamy

Per Gopalan Gurusamy, AM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Act

2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Baiju Roy dated 04.12.2025 for the AY 2017-18, vide Appeal No. NFAC/2016- 17/10508261. 2. There was a delay of 191 days in the filing of appeal. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with an affidavit requesting to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. Considering the reasons given in the affidavit, we condone the delay in the filing

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 →