BIREN MAJHI,PURULIA vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), PURULIA, PURULIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2988/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 October 2026AY 2022-20234 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 448 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay to be bona fide and beyond the assessee's control. However, noting that the assessee had not made compliance even before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee will be provided an opportunity of being heard before the de-novo assessment order is passed. The issue of whether the delay should have been condoned was decided in favor of the assessee, but the ultimate relief was a remand for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Biren Majhi, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 10.06.2026. This order, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissed the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 on grounds of delay and latches. The original assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was passed on 13.02.2024, making certain additions. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 448 days. The ITAT heard the appeal as the assessee was unrepresented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 448 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions (as presented to Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay): The assessee's advocate received the assessment order on his registered email ID and the Income Tax Portal. The advocate's wife was suffering from Chronic Kidney disease and was admitted to the hospital, and she expired on 10.10.2024. Due to mental disturbance, the advocate missed filing the appeal. Upon receiving a demand letter, the assessee learned about the matter and was advised by his advocate to consult another lawyer as he was not mentally fit. The assessee then engaged a new advocate, Sri Sandeep Kumar Choubey, on 18.05.2025, who requested documents. The assessee submitted the required documents on 24.05.2025. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. Departmental Representative argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and thus the Ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar De, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.10.2026Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2988/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Biren Majhi Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Purulia Balarampur, Kalitola, Rangadih West Bengal-723143 [PAN: BISPM2068P] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sandip Kumar De, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 26.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Appeal isfiled by the Assesseeagainst the order of the NFAC, Delhi‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 10.06.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act on 13.02.2024 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 13.02.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 10.06.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the

ITA No.2988/Kol/2026 Biren Majhi; A.Y: 2022-23 Assessee on delay in latches.As against the order oppf the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10.06.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first Appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 13.02.2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 448 days and the Assessee has contended following reasons to condone the delay:-

“That order under section 143(3) has been issued by your department has been received by my Advocate on his registered mail ID as well as on my Income Tax Portal that is handled by him. That my advocate on record was engaged in the treatment of his wife Soma Gourishankar Khan, who was suffering from ChronicKidney disease and was admitted in Hospital for diagnosis and treatment. And she expired on 10.10.2024

ITA No.2988/Kol/2026 Biren Majhi; A.Y: 2022-23 That due to mental disturbance, my advocate missed to file appeal against the order under section 143(3) issued by your Department and he could not give proper attention towards the matter. That after receiving a demand letter from income tax department, I came to know about the entire matter and contacted with my advocate - Sri GournShankar Khan he requested me to consult with any other advocate or consultant to file the appeal against the order issued by your office, because his is not mentally fit to work TA That thereafter I consult the entire matter with my newly appointed advocate Sri Sandeep Kumar Choubey and handover the entire matter to him for filing of appeal on 18th day of May 2025. After going through with the matter he asked me to submit some documents in support of my claim for filing the appeal That after collecting all the documents asked by my advocate - Sri Sandeep Kumar Choubey, on 24.05.2025, I have submitted all the documents to him for prepare and file the appeal against the order issued under section 143(3).”

However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the above Appeal.

6.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial

ITA No.2988/Kol/2026 Biren Majhi; A.Y: 2022-23 justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 448 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, as the Assessee has not made the compliance even before the Assessing Officer, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard before passing the de-novo assessment order.

7.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.10.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY//

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.10.29 BHOI 12:10:27 +05'30' Page | 4

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →