RISHI KUMAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 532/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The operative direction is to decide the appeal afresh on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the substantive appeal was not decided on merits by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rishi Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2017-18. There was a delay of 216 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to the laxity of their former tax consultant. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT. The assessment order, passed under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had made certain additions. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal before it. The revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, argued for the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay and the assessee's non-participation in the first appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 216 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of former consultant's laxity (turning on the principles of natural justice and liberal interpretation of delay condonation provisions). 2. Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee's appeal without deciding all grounds on merits, and allegedly ex-parte, warrants interference by the Tribunal (turning on principles of natural justice and the scope of appellate review). Assessee's contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to the laxity of the ex tax consultant. Revenue's contentions: - There is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. - The assessee did not participate in the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities. - The Ld. CIT(A) rightly passed the impugned order, which requires no interference. - The Ld. CIT(A)'s order should be relied upon, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,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 07.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the captioned Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Rishi Kumar; A.Y: 2017-18

3.

There is a delay of 216 days in filing the captioned Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay contending that, the appeal could not be filed within the due date due to laxity o

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 →