BIBI SAHJADI BANO,PURNEA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PURNEA, PURNEA

ITA 527/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 108 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. The ITAT found the assessee's reasons for delay to be bona fide and beyond her control. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard before passing the de-novo assessment order. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bibi Sahjadi Bano, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (referred to as Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 125 days. The assessee contended that she is an illiterate person, not computer-savvy, and the online appeal order escaped her attention. The dismissal of her appeal came to her knowledge when her son checked an email containing a demand notice. The ITAT condoned this delay. The original assessment order was passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on January 31, 2024. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal on grounds of delay and latches.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 108 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is to be condoned on the grounds stated by the assessee? (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Act). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, being an illiterate old lady with health issues (severe back pain, high sugar, high blood pressure), was unaware of tax portal communications. The registered email and mobile number belonged to an internet café owner, leading to a lack of communication. Therefore, the delay was unintentional and due to circumstances beyond her control. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and thus the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the first appeal on delay and latches.

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, PATNA ‘SMC’ BENCH

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

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.10.2026Pronounced: 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 30.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 125 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that Assessee is an illiterate person and not aware of the computer knowledge. The Appeal order was passed online and escaped his attention. The dismissal of the Appeal came to his knowledge only Bibi Sahjadi Bano; A.Y: 2019-20 when his son checked the E-mail containing the notice of demand under various sections of 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 →