ZAHURUL HAQUE GAZI,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD 25(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2803/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 October 2026AY 2022-20232 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay of 701 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) were cogent and bonafide, and therefore, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment framed by the AO was ex-parte, as the assessee did not respond to notices. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, if sufficiently explained, should not preclude an assessee from getting a decision on merits, and principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing to be given.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.06.2026, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 701 days, without deciding the merits. The assessment itself was framed ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 08.03.2024, as the assessee did not respond to notices issued during the assessment proceedings. The assessee is Zahurul Haque Gazi, and the respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1). The dispute pertains to the assessment for AY 2022-23.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 701 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Revenue's contention is not recorded. The Assessee's argument is not recorded. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's contention is not recorded. The Assessee's argument is not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] Delhi dated10.06.2026 for the AY 2022-23.

2.

At the outset, we observe from the records, that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 701 days without deciding the issue on merit, which is in violation of Provision of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). We find the reasons for delay to be cogent and bonafide and consequently condone the delay. Similarly, we note that the assessment framed by the ld. AO was also framed ex-parte u/s 147 read with section 144B of

ITA No. 2803/KOL/2026 Jahurul Haque Gazi; A.Y. 2023-24 the Act vide order dated 08.03.2024, when the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Considering the facts of the case, we are inclined to restore the appeal back to the file of the ld. AO in view of the principle of natural justice and fair play, with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.10.2026 Digitally signed Sudip Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS by Sudip Sarkar Copy of the Order forwarded to: Date: 1. The Appellant Sarkar 2026.10.30 2. The Respondent 10:02:49 +05'30' 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Dy. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →