BINDESHWAR RAM,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), GAYA, GAYA

ITA 430/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 October 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 187 and 156 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay when supported by justifiable reasons for substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order upholding the penalty was also set aside and restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The ratio is that an appellate authority must provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an order, and failure to do so warrants a remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bindeshwar Ram, filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeals were filed with a delay of 187 and 156 days. The assessee attributed the delay to serious health complications and continuous medical treatment, hindering their ability to coordinate with counsel and gather necessary documents. The Revenue contended that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The ITAT condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The original assessment order, passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B, included additions of Rs. 13,56,870/- for salary income variation and Rs. 16,76,000/- for unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. A penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was also imposed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the assessee's submissions of ill health and inability to pursue the matter. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred by passing ex-parte orders without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the delay was due to bona fide circumstances beyond their control, specifically severe health issues, and that condoning the delay would serve substantial justice. They also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard, violating natural justice principles, and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and sought dismissal of the appeals on grounds of delay and latches. They also relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(b),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhi Sarkar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, CIT, DR on behalf of Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 25.09.2025 & 14.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order and order of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

2.

There is a delay of 187 & 156 days in filing the captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed applications along with affidavit for ITA Nos.429 & 430/Pat/2026 Bindeshwar Ram; A.Y: 2015-16 condonation of delay narrating the common reason

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →