RAM NATH,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1387/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had provided reasons for the delay in filing the appeal through a notarized affidavit, it was fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider the notarized affidavit, and then pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee should cooperate by filing all required documents before the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The issue of the merits of the assessment itself was not decided by the Tribunal, as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to enable a fresh adjudication by the lower appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ram Nath, filed an appeal against an ex-parte appellate order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. This order arose from an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to a delay of 995 days. The assessee submitted a notarized affidavit explaining the delay, stating that statutory notices were not received at the correct address, were uploaded without knowledge, or not communicated. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the order and demand until recovery proceedings were initiated on 19/11/2025. The assessee, being a layperson, lacked adequate knowledge of income-tax procedures and sought condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 995 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the notarized affidavit, and if so, whether the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, turning on the principles of substantial justice over technicalities. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to bonafide and unavoidable reasons, including non-receipt of statutory notices, lack of awareness of the order, and being a layperson with limited knowledge of procedures. The assessee relied on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned. The assessee undertook to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, FCA

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte on the ground that delay of 995 in filing the appeal and has not offered the assessee to explain the reason and now the assessee is ready to file all necessary details before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has filed a notarized affidavit explaining the delay as follows:- “1. That I am the appellant / authorised representative of the appellant in the above matter and am fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2.

That the appeal against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, could not be filed within the prescribed time limit due to bonafide and unavoidable reasons, as explained herein below.

3.

That the appellant did not receive the statutory notices, assessment order and demand notice issued by the department within time. The same were either:

 not served at the correct address, or  uploaded on the e-filing portal without the knowledge of the appellant, or  not communicated to the appellant in any manner.

4.

That the appellant was completely unaware of the passing of the impugned order and consequential demand and therefore could not file the appeal within the limitation period.

5.

That the appellant is a layperson and was not having adequate knowledge of income-tax procedures and portal compliances and had no intention whatsoever to delay the filing of appeal deliberately.

6.

That the appellant came to know about the said order/demand only on 19/11/2025, when:

 recovery proceedings were initiated and  notice for recovery was received.

7.

That immediately upon acquiring such knowledge, the appellant contacted professional counsel and filed the appeal without any further delay.

8.

That the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.

9.

That if the delay is not condoned, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship, whereas no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned.

10.

That it is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, and matters should be decided on merits rather than dismissed on limitation.

11.

That the appellant undertakes to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings.

PRAYER

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Authority may kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

1 Therefore, Ld. Counsel requested to condone the delay and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing the order afresh on merits of the case.

3.

Per contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities.

4.

Heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the assessee has now explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal by way of notarized affidavit, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to consider the notarized affidavit filed by the assessee and then pass fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say the assessee should cooperate by filing all the required documents before the Ld. CIT(A) for passing the order on merits of the case.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26-10-2026 (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 26/10/2026 Dhananjay K., Sr. PS

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1.

Assessee

2.

Revenue

3.

Concerned CIT Dhananjay Kumar

5.

DR, ITAT Date: 2026.11.03 '11:57:07 +05'30

6.

Guard file. By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, जयपुर

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →