ASHISH JAIN,GUNA MP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA MP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 700/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 October 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's first appeals solely on the technicality of delay without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the ITAT emphasized that procedural law is subservient to justice and should not be a barrier to meeting extraordinary situations for the ends of justice. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) for condoning the delay to be sufficient. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) dated 27.07.2026, and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after considering the precedents and ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, involve multiple appeals filed by the assessee, Ashish Jain, against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeals in limine due to the rejection of the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay. The assessment years involved are 2015-16. The ITAT noted that the assessee did not respond, while the Revenue was represented by its Senior Departmental Representative. The core of the dispute lies in the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone a delay of approximately three years in filing the first appeals, which led to the confirmation of the original orders without a hearing on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's first appeals in limine upon rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay, thereby denying the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention (as stated in the grounds before CIT(A)): The assessee argued that the delay occurred because they had non-taxable income and were unaware of any proceedings due to incorrect mail IDs and mobile numbers in the department's profile, as well as an incorrect address. They only became aware of the pending demand when their bank account was seized on 25.12.2025, after which they registered on the portal with correct details. They sought condonation of the three-year delay on these grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Department was represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR, but does not detail the specific arguments made by the Revenue on the issue of delay condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.10.2026Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 696/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) 2. ITA No. 698/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) 3. ITA No. 699/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) 4. ITA No. 700/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ashish Jain, Vs. ITO, Raj Colony infront of Income Tax Office, Jain Nasiya Ji BG Road Guna-473001 Guna, 473001 PAN: ANUPJ6452A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.10.2026

ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. The aforesaid appeals have been filed against the impugned orders, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed all the aforesaid appeals upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. The details of the first appellate

ITA 696,698,699,700/Agr/2026

proceedings pertaining to section 250 of the Act, are set out in the following table: S ITA Nos. Assess First Appeal Date of No. of days Section of r. ment Year No. Impugned for which IT Act, 1961 N Order delay is not o condoned 1. 696/Agr/20 2015-16 NFAC/2014- 27.07.2026 1132 147/144/144 26 15/10614513 B 2015-16 2. 698/Agr/20 NFAC/2014- 27.07.2026 972 271(F) 26 15/10617066 2015-16 3. 699/Agr/20 NFAC/2014- 27.07.2026 1012 271(1)(b) 26 15/10617065 2015-16 27.07.2026 4. 700/Agr/20 NFAC/2014- 971 271(1)(c) 26 15/10617064

3.

All these appeals have been filed on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the first appeals upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay, resulting in the confirmation of impugned orders without affording reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. We have perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 5. The common and main issue in all the aforesaid appeals is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s first appeals in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

2 | P a g e

ITA 696,698,699,700/Agr/2026

6.

We notice that the assessee has raised the following common ground before ld CIT(A) to condone the delay caused in filing the aforesaid appeals before the first appellate authority: “That the applicant assessee has a non taxable income of Rs 1,46,776/- and due to it, assessee has not filed his return of income. That the mail ID in the profile of department was wrong alongwith mobile number so assessee was unaware of any proceedings and due to it assessee could not represent his case. That the address of assessee was also not correct and due to it assessee do not received any communication from the department. That when bank account of assessee was seized on 25.12.2025 then only assessee came to know about any demand pending from IT department and then assessee got himself registered on the portal with correct mail ID and addresss. That as the assessee was unaware of the proceedings, the delay of filling the appeal of three years may please be condoned.” 7. It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay caused in filing the same. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay caused in filing the aforesaid first appeals. 8. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technicalities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, Civil Appeal no. 6731/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14562 of 2006) vide judgment dated 20.11.2008, has held that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. No party should 3 | P a g e

ITA 696,698,699,700/Agr/2026

ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra ordinary situations in the ends of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Processual law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. 9. The object of prescribing period of limitation in filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings and to advance the cause of justice. In such circumstances, we treat the grounds raised before ld CIT(A) as sufficient. The delay is thus condonable and the appeals are liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, all the appeals namely ITA No. 696,698,699 & 700/Agr/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned orders each dated 27.07.2026 are set aside. The delay caused in filing the aforesaid first appeals before the first appellant authority i.e. before learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matters back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law after 4 | P a g e

ITA 696,698,699,700/Agr/2026

substantial consideration of the authoritative precedents brought on record by the ld AR. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Order pronounced in Open Court on - 28.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 28.10.2026 *Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →