BALWANT SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 264/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 October 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that technical and procedural problems are common in faceless proceedings, especially for assessees who are not tech-savvy. The assessee's explanation that he came to know about the assessment order only on 10.05.2024, when an Income Tax Inspector visited his house with a demand notice dated 24.04.2024, was considered a sustainable explanation and constituted "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Tribunal invoked the principle of liberal interpretation of the Limitation Act, as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC), to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits, and the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present his case with supporting evidence, including bank statements, power of attorney, and registered sale deeds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balwant Singh, is in appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 292 days, without adjudicating on the merits. The original assessment proceedings were initiated based on information that the assessee had transactions totaling Rs. 88,70,000/- but had not filed a return of income. Notices under Sections 148A, 148, and 142(1) were issued, to which the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 88,70,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claims to have become aware of the assessment order only on 10.05.2024 when an Income Tax Inspector visited his house with a demand of Rs. 78,38,718/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is liable to be condoned, thereby allowing the appeal to be heard on merits, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that he received the assessment order notice on 10.05.2024 and filed the appeal on 08.06.2024, which is within the limitation period from the date of receiving the notice. He also contended that the email address provided in Form 35 did not receive any order. The assessee, being not tech-savvy and having studied only up to the secondary level, faced procedural difficulties, and the delay was due to a lack of knowledge of the assessment order. The assessee relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC)) for liberal interpretation of limitation provisions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Ld. DR for the Revenue was heard, but no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case are detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 264/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Balwant Singh Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Harbhan Singh Ward-1, Vs P.O. Bhandoor, Bharatpur. (Respondent) Bharatpur. PAN: ESJPS7981H (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 13-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Balwant Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2015-16 on the ground that:- “1. The Ld. CIT appeals erred in dismissing the appeal alleging that delay in filing the appeal without going to the merits of the case and confirming the order of reopening of the assessment and reopening of the assessee and

I.T.A No. 264/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Balwant Singh

confirming the expartia assessment order under section 144 and huge addition of Rs. 88,70,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.” 2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : For the year under consideration the assessee has not filed the return of income despite having transacted to the tune of Rs. 88,70,000/-. On the basis of information available on data base, show cause notice u/s 148A(d of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was issued. Then notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, but the assessee has failed to file the return in response thereto. Again notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 21.10.2022 and 01.12.2022, but no response has been filed by the assessee. Consequently, on failure of the assessee to discharge the onus of proving the details of cash deposit made to the tune of Rs. 88,70,000/- during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition thereof u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

I.T.A No. 264/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Balwant Singh

4.

We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed in limine by not condoning the delay of 292 days. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessee has received notice of the assessment order dated 10.05.2024, when Inspector of Income Tax has visited his house with income tax demand of Rs. 78,38,718/- and thereafter he immediately filed the appeal on 08.06.2024. It is further contended by the Ld. AR for the assessee that as per Form 35 email address is given as aalpl9697d@gmail.com , but no such order has been received on this email. It is also further contended by the Ld. AR for the assessee that from the date of notice of the order the appeal has been filed well within limitation. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that since start of faceless proceedings such technical/procedural problem are being faced by the assessees, who are not tech-savvy. Everyone cannot be supposed to have his/her own email ID and to check it regularly. No doubt the Assessing Officer has shown to have given many notices to the assessee, but it is nowhere recorded as to on which email ID the said notices were posted.

I.T.A No. 264/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Balwant Singh

7.

In the given circumstances provisions for condonation of delay under limitation Act are required to be liberally interpreted in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471 (SC). The assessee who has studied upto secondary class and is into agricultural cultivation having no knowledge of SMS and email deserves adequate opportunity of being heard. The contention of the assessee that he came to know about the assessment order only on 10.05.2024 when the Income Tax Inspector has visited his house with tax demand of Rs.78,38,718/- is a sustainable explanation. The assessee has also brought on record the demand recovery notice dated 24.04.2024. 8. In the given circumstances, we find it a “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). So the appeal is being heard on merits. 9. Since Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits rather dismissed the same in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, nor the assessee has appeared before the Assessing Officer it would be in the interest substantive justice, if the assessee is given an opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer to present his appeal with the support of evidences in the form of bank statement available at page 1 to 7 of the paper book, copy of power of attorney

I.T.A No. 264/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Balwant Singh

available at page 8 to 11 of the paper book and copy of registered sale deeds available at page 12 to 65 of the paper book. 10. Since the impugned order is passed by the Ld. CIT(A) at the back of the assessee by not providing adequate opportunity of being heard by dismissing his appeal in limine on ground of delay, which now stood condoned, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be set aside. 11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose to be decided by the Assessing Officer afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-10-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 22/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →