EUSUB ALI,DARRANG ASSAM vs. ITO WARD MANGALDOI ASSAM , MANGALDOI, ASSAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 336/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 October 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 1275 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasoning was based on the affidavit filed by the assessee before the ITAT, which provided an explanation for the delay, and also considering the fact that the assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 with an estimated income of 20%, which was considered high. The Tribunal also took into account the prayer made by the assessee's counsel for one more chance to represent the case and the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The issue of whether the delay should have been condoned by the CIT(A) was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Eusub Ali, is challenging an order passed by the NFAC (CIT(A)) dated 31.03.2026 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 1275 days. The original assessment order was passed under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 25.03.2022. The assessee attributed the delay to being from a rural area with limited access to professional services. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for not condoning the delay, citing lack of "reasonable cause." The assessment itself was based on a belief of income escapement of Rs. 2,32,88,315/-. The assessee had not filed a return under Section 139. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 25.03.2021, and the assessee filed a return on 22.03.2021 declaring Rs. 29,84,30/-. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer obtained bank statements showing credits of Rs. 2,18,68,500/- in a current account and Rs. 23,65,000/- in another bank account. The assessment was completed under Section 144 by estimating income at 20% of total deposits, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 37,95,382/- after considering disclosed income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1275 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of being from a rural area with limited access to professional services, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 250 of the IT Act). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional due to rural limitations and requested condonation on grounds of natural justice. The assessee also submitted an affidavit before the ITAT explaining the delay. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities and did not have serious objections. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 139,Section 148,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Goradia, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 15.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY,VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 336/GTY/2026 Assessment Year :2017-18

Eusub Ali Vs. ITO, Ward Mangaldoi Assam, Village Nadirkash, Bechimari, P.O. Lalpool, Darrang 784514, Lakshmi Nath Mangaldoi Bezbaruah Roadm Mangaldai, Assam Assam - 784514 784125., Mangaldoi [PAN: AQKPA9409R] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Goradia, FCA Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT

Date of hearing : 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06 .10.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as) u/s CIT(A) dated 31.03.2026 for u/s 250 of the Act on the following grounds.

2.

At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that theLd. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay for filing appeal of 1275 days. The assessing order was passed u/s 147/144. The assessment order was passed u/s 147/144 of the IT Act on 25.03.2022 whereas the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 05.09.2025.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal should have been filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. However, the assessee stated the reason in Form No. 35 as under :-

The assessee belongs to a rural area with no access to immediate professional advisory services. It was only after considerable effort and time that the assessee could engage with professionals to adequately respond to the notices. The delay in filing the response was unintentional and solely due to these limitations. On the grounds of natural justice, the assessee humbly requests the authorities to consider the explanation and attached documentation However, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying various judgments observed that the assessee has no “ reasonable cause” and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for not condoning the delay. Further on going to the assessment order, it is notice that the assessee has not filedhis return of income u/s 139 of the Act, for the impugned assessment year, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 23,65,000/- in bankaccount other than current account and there is a case withdrawal of Rs. 16,000/- and TDS was also made and AO had reason to believe that there is an escapement of income of Rs. 2,32,88,315/- for the year under consideration. Accordingly, after due compliance for making

assessment u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 25.03.2021 and time was granted 30 days to file return of income the assessee filled return of income on 22.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 29,8430/-.Accordingly, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessing officer issued various notices but there was no response from the assessee side. The assessing officer after obtain bank statement from Assam Gramin Vikash Bank u/s 133(6) of the Act where assessee had maintained current account with Asssam Gramin Vikash Bank account No. 735600000012 and there is a total credit of Rs. 2,18,68,500/-. The assessee was given multiples opportunities but there was no response from the assessee side. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 144 estimating the income @ of 20% which comes to Rs. 43,73,700/-. Assessee had already disclosedsed of Rs. 578,318/- which was reduced. Accordingly, the income was assesseedat Rs. 37,95,382/- and assessment order was passed on 25.03.2022 by the NFAC. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel prayed and undertook that one more chance may be given to the assessee to represent his case. Since the assessment was completed u/s 144 and the ld. CIT(A) has rendered ex-parte order and the income estimated by the Assessing Officer 20% which is very high.

3.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and he has no serious objection considering the facts of the case. The ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay for filing appeal before him for 1275 days and assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act, estimating 20% income on the total deposit in current account and prayer of the Ld. Counsel, facts of the case and in the interest of justice. We are condoning the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) considering the affidavit dated 27.05.2026 filed by the assessee before us, which is placed on record and the case is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision and decide the issue as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed, not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case in case. In case of failure. no second leniency shall be granted.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 06 .10.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Vice President Accountant Member

Dated: 06 .10.2026 DC

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

1.

Date of Dictation…Date on which the typed order is placed before the dictating Member and other Member……11.09.2026 2. Date on which the order came back to PS……11.09.2026 3. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk… 4. Date on which the file goes to the O.S………………………………… 5. Date on dispatch of the order………………………………………

In result,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →