MAGADH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

ITA 526/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 October 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 886 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach for condonation when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, and the assessee had not participated in the proceedings, nor had all grounds of appeal been decided on merits. It was also observed that the assessee had not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. This was made subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). 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 appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Magadh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 11.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. There was a delay of 886 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to the serious health issues of their earlier authorized representative and the time taken to engage a new, competent professional. The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The assessment order was initially passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 30.12.2019. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 886 days in filing the appeal, as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be condoned on the grounds presented by the assessee. Assessee's contention: The delay was due to bona fide reasons, including the severe health issues of the previous authorized representative and the time required to find a suitable replacement. They argued that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, citing the principle of liberal interpretation in condonation of delay. The assessee also claimed a strong prima facie case on merits. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and sought dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay and latches. 2. Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and whether all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. Assessee's contention: The assessee submitted that they could not make proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). They further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide all the grounds of appeal and passed an ex-parte order, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the assessee is a chronic defaulter who failed to make proper compliance before the lower authorities. They contended that the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) were passed in accordance with law and required no interference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 253

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 Rahul Choubey, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

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 11.12.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 886 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“3. That the Authorised Representative who was handling the matter on behalf of the Appellant suffered from serious health issues during the Magadh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Patna; A.Y: 2017-18 relevant period, which adversely affected h

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 →