AKHTAR MADAR KHAN,PURANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(4), PILIBHIT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 933/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 October 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 154 days. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a sufficient cause for the delay, namely, suffering from severe lower back pain, supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court judgments in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, emphasized that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. Acceptance of the explanation for delay should be the rule, and refusal an exception, especially when no negligence or want of bona fide can be imputed to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds afresh by passing a speaking order, after condoning the delay. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant information. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Akhtar Madar Khan, failed to file his income tax return for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and issued statutory notices. The assessee did not respond. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment ex parte under Section 147 read with Section 144, making an addition of Rs. 32,31,400/- under Section 69A for unexplained money and determining total income at Rs. 32,31,599/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed ex parte due to a delay of 154 days in filing. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT challenges the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued by the AO is bad in law and needs to be quashed (Question of law, relying on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 32,31,400/- under Section 69A without providing a proper opportunity of being heard (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 69A and principles of natural justice). 3. Whether the AO erred in taxing the alleged addition under Section 115BBE, particularly when an ex-parte order was passed (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 115BBE and procedural fairness). 4. Whether the order passed by the AO is against the principles of natural justice as no proper opportunity of being heard was given (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice). 5. Whether the AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A and 234B (Question of law, concerning Sections 234A and 234B). 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness). Assessee's contentions: The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and passed a non-speaking order, ignoring the assessee's submissions. The CIT(A) failed to condone the delay in filing the appeal despite sufficient and genuine cause explained by the assessee. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. Revenue's contentions: The assessee was negligent and failed to furnish supporting evidence. The lower authorities were justified in making the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, CA
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 25.06.2026 pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued by the Ld. AO is bad in law and needs be quashed. 2. Ground 2. The Ld.AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.3231400/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Ground 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in taxing the alleged addition u/s 115BBE particularly when an ex-partie order is passed against the appellant. 4. Ground 4. The order passed by the Ld. AO is against principles of natural justice as no proper opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee.

ITA No.933/LKW/2026 Page 2 of 5 5. Ground 5. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act 1961. 6. Ground 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not giving opportunity of being heard in matter of condonation of delay in filing of appeal. 7. Ground 7. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was taken up for re-assessment proceedings, and the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) issued a statutory notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). However, the assessee neither filed his return of income in response to the said notice nor furnished any reply to the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.32,31,400/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, thereby determining the total income at Rs.32,31,599/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte to the assessee on the basis of delay in preferring the appeal. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and passed a non-speaking order by ignoring the submission duly filed by the assessee. He also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeal without appreciating that there was sufficient and genuine cause of delay as explained by the assessee. Thus, he prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and matter may

ITA No.933/LKW/2026 Page 3 of 5 please be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities. He contended that the assessee had been throughout negligent and failed to furnish supporting evidences. Thus, the lower authorities were justified in making the addition.

5.

I have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on records. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine as the same was filed beyond limitation. Undisputedly, the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by 154 days. I have considered the explanation offered by the assessee for delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or for causing any prejudice to the Revenue in any manner. The assessee submitted that he was suffering from severe lower back pain and, in support of his contention, furnished a medical certificate to substantiate his medical condition. In the present case, the assessee is thus able to explain “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

6.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.

ITA No.933/LKW/2026 Page 4 of 5 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.

8.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others 2002 AIR 1201 (SC) has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party.

9.

In the light of above precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal approach and condoned the delay. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper and to sub-serve the interest of principles of natural justice to set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the grounds afresh and by giving clear finding on the grounds raised by the assessee by way of speaking order. Needless to say that the assessee would provide all the information which is relevant and necessary for adjudication of grounds of appeal. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.933/LKW/2026 Page 5 of 5 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2026.

Sd/- [कुल भारत] [KUL BHARAT] उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 28/10/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT Digitally signed by VIJAY PAL 4. DR VIJAY PAL SINGH 5. Guard File SINGH Date: 2026.10.28 16:38:25 +05'30' By order Sr. Private Secretary

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →