SANJAI KARN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 192/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 October 2026AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee persistently failed to remove the defect of unsigned grounds of appeal despite repeated opportunities. Furthermore, the assessee was absent on almost all hearing dates. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as defective. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal for recalling the order upon demonstrating sufficient cause for non-appearance. The issues regarding the delay condonation, addition under section 69A, and deduction under section 80C were not decided on merits due to the dismissal of the appeal as defective.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Karn, filed an appeal against an order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.12.2025, for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 2209 days. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) in limine due to the delay, the sustaining of an addition of Rs. 42,80,000 as unexplained money under section 69A, and the disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 80C. During the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee. The registry had pointed out a defect that the grounds of appeal were not signed by the appellant, and despite sufficient opportunities, this defect remained unrectified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 2209 days in filing the appeal, as per section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee contended that the delay was due to unawareness of the assessment order until recovery proceedings were initiated, with no mala fide intent, and that there was a sufficient cause for the delay. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,80,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, on account of purported agricultural income? The assessee argued that the agricultural income was inadvertently declared by the Chartered Accountant, and as a private sector employee living in an urban area without owning agricultural land, earning such income was impossible. 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 80C of the Act? The assessee claimed the deduction was based on actual payments made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 69A,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Dr. Preeti Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.12.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1.1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 2209 days in filing the appeal. 1.2. Because the delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the fact that the appellant was unaware of passing of the order impugned till the department contacted him for the recovery of demand created pursuant to the said assessment order and hence, there was no mala fide on part of the appellant in not filing the appeal in time. 1.3. Because there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 2209 days in filing the first appeal and therefore, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the said delay by virtue of the provisions contained in section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

ITA No.192/LKW/2026 Page 2 of 3 2.1. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on acts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,80,000.00 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act on account of the purported agricultural income shown in the return of income. 2.2. BECAUSE accountant of the Chartered Accountant Firm inadvertently declared Rs. 42,80,000.00 agricultural income in the return of income although the appellant did not earn any such income. 2.3. BECAUSE during the relevant financial year the appellant was a private sector employee living in Kanpur City (an urban area) since birth and did not own or possess any agricultural land and hence, earning of agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 42,80,000.00 is almost impossible. 3.1. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000.00 under section 80C of the Act. 3.2. Because the deduction of Rs.1,50,000.00 was claimed on account of actual payments made and therefore, there was no justification to disallow the same. 4. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and the principles of natural justice to the extent above.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee to prosecute the present appeal. It is evident from the record that the Registry had pointed out a defect in the appeal, namely, that the grounds of appeal were not signed by the appellant. The assessee was required to remove the said defect by submitting duly signed grounds of appeal. However, despite sufficient opportunities have been given to the assessee, the assessee failed to rectify the defect. It is pertinent to note that the appeal was instituted before the Registry on 21.02.2026 and, thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on several occasions. However, except on one occasion, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the defect pointed out by the Registry remains unrectified till date.

3.

Under these facts, the persistent failure of the assessee to remove the defect despite repeated opportunities and the absence of representation on almost all the dates of hearing, it can reasonably be inferred that the assessee is not interested in

ITA No.192/LKW/2026 Page 3 of 3 prosecuting the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as defective. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for recalling of this order, upon demonstrating “sufficient cause” for non- appearance as per law. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA. No.192/LKW/2026 is dismissed being defective. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2026.

Sd/- [कुल भारत] [KUL BHARAT] उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 15/10/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR Digitally signed by VIJAY PAL VIJAY PAL SINGH 5. Guard File SINGH Date: 2026.10.15 15:53:06 +05'30' By order Sr. Private Secretary

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →