ASGHAR ALI,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA

ITA 1829/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 October 2026AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 298 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that while it is expected for assessees to file appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona fide and beyond the assessee's control, it can be construed as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's clarification that delays with sufficient cause should be viewed liberally to ensure substantial justice. Citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal held that justifiable reasons for delay should make way for substantial justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with a direction that the assessee be provided an opportunity of being heard before passing the new assessment order. The issue of the merits of the assessment itself was not decided by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Asghar Ali, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (referred to as Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's first appeal against an assessment order dated 09.01.2025, passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dismissal by the NFAC was on account of a delay of 298 days in filing the first appeal. The assessee contended that the delay was due to serious medical circumstances, including a cardiac ailment and subsequent surgery, which prevented him from attending to tax proceedings in a timely manner. The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 298 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), as required under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by serious medical circumstances, specifically a cardiac ailment and subsequent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) surgery, which rendered him physically and mentally unable to attend to tax proceedings in time. Medical records from 2015 to 2022 were presented to support this claim. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 298 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Molay Dhar, & Shri Khairual Anam
For Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 18.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 09.01.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 09.01.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 18.03.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Asghar Ali; A.Y: 2017-18 Assessee.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.03.2026, Assessee filed the

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →