MUSLIM MINORITY COLLEGE,BHAGALPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

ITA 536/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 October 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 279 days in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause, as laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's and the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, with no participation from the assessee. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated all grounds of appeal on merits. Considering that the assessee, in Ground No. 12, contended for restoration to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order, and the assessee was directed to participate in the proceedings without fail. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Muslim Minority College, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 536 & 537/PAT/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the NFAC, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) dated August 13, 2025, for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals were filed with a delay of 279 days. The assessee cited serious health complications of the Professor-in-Charge, Dr. Md. Tanweer Alam, and a lack of communication regarding the disposal of the first appeal as reasons for the delay. The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The assessment orders for the years in question were passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer on March 15, 2023, and March 22, 2024, under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 279 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused by circumstances beyond the appellant's control, including the serious health complications of the Professor-in-Charge, Dr. Md. Tanweer Alam, and the bona fide impression that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was still pending. They relied on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and cited the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Revenue's Contention: There is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, and therefore, the appeals should be dismissed on delay and laches. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) require interference, and if so, what is the appropriate relief? Assessee's Contention: (Not recorded as none appeared for the assessee. However, Ground No. 12 mentioned restoration to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment). Revenue's Contention: The assessee is a chronic defaulter who did not appear before the lower authorities. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) are in accordance with law and require no interference. They relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought dismissal of the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,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 Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 13.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since the above captioned Appeals are filed by the single Assessee, having identical issues to be decided, the captioned Appeals are heard together and decided in this common order.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the captioned Appeals, we deem it fit to decide the Appeals on ITA Nos.536 & 537/Pat/2026 Muslim Minority College, Bhagalpur; A.Ys

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 →