NARAYAN SINGH,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

ITA 823/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2015-163 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 245 days in filing the appeal, finding that the appellant had sufficient cause and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, in order to ensure substantive justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex parte and non-responsive. Consequently, the impugned order of the NFAC was set aside to the extent challenged. The matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to examine the issue afresh. The AO was instructed to consider the submissions and evidence furnished by the appellant and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Simultaneously, the appellant was directed to cooperate with the assessment proceedings and furnish all relevant details and evidence as and when called for. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Narayan Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, against an order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a delay of 245 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to reasons that were neither intentional nor deliberate and claiming sufficient cause. The Revenue, represented by the CIT-DR, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The assessment order leading to the impugned order was passed ex parte due to the appellant's non-responsiveness.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 245 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure). Assessee's Contention: The learned AR argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the appellant had sufficient cause for the delay, praying for condonation to ensure substantive justice. Revenue's Contention: The learned DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities, implying no specific argument was made regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal at this stage.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR

Before: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BENCH: DB

BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 823/JODH/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16) NARAYAN SINGH ITO, WARD-1 C/O. SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ADVOCATE BARMER-, RAJASTHAN Vs. 106, AKSHAY DEEP COMPLEX, 5TH B ROAD, SARDARPURA,, JODHPUR- 342001, RAJASTHAN Appellant Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: EKAPS 4578 H

Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Appellant represented by: (Virtually) Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR Respondent represented by: (Virtually) Date of conclusion of hearing: 16 / 09 / 2026 Date of pronouncement: 27 / 10 / 2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 28th December 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as NFAC/CIT(A)].

2 ITA 823/JODH/2024 Asst. Year: 2015-16 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 245 days and for which, the appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned AR submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the appellant has sufficient cause for the delay. It was accordingly prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. In order to ensure substantive justice, we condone the same. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 5. It is noticed that assessment order passed ex parte and non responsive of the appellant, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent challenged before us and the matter is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to examine the issue afresh, after considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the appellant and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and simultaneously the appellant is directed to cooperate with the assessment proceedings and furnish all relevant details/evidences as and when may be called for. 6. In the result, this appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 27/10/ 2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS

3 ITA 823/JODH/2024 Asst. Year: 2015-16 True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 10:41:13 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →