BIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH,SAI BUILDING, PS ROAD, SICHEY GANGTOK EAST GANGTOK vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX, WARD 3(1) GANGTOK, GANGTOK, SIKKIM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2118/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 October 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 185 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be good and sufficient. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the orders of the authorities below were passed ex-parte, with no representation before the NFAC or the AO. The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bijendra Kumar Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.09.2025, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The appeal was filed 185 days after the due date, and a petition for condonation of delay was filed and allowed. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-response to notices. Furthermore, there was no representation before the NFAC. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the AO for a fresh decision after considering their contentions and evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, should be admitted for adjudication, considering the delay and the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO and the subsequent ex-parte order by the NFAC, due to the assessee's failure to appear and represent their case, warrant a restoration of the proceedings to the AO for a fresh decision? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment was framed ex-parte due to non-response to notices and that there was no representation before the NFAC. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee to present their contentions and evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) did not oppose the assessee's arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Apurba, Shri Tushar Sarkar, Ars
For Respondent: Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar
Hearing: 05.08.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2118/KOL/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17)

Bijendra Kumar Singh Vs. Office of ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Sai Building PS Road Sichey Gangtok East Gangtok, Area Code-WBG, AO Type-W, AO Number-91, Range Code- Sikkim-737101 208, Jurisdiction-Ward 3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. CVRPS6613R Assessee by : Shri Apurba Sah and Shri Tushar Sarkar, Ars Revenue by : Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar Gautam, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05.08.2026 Date of pronouncement: 30.10.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]for the A.Y.2016-17.

2.

At the outset, we observe that the appeal is barred by 185 days. The Assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay has been fully explained which is for good and sufficient reasons. Therefore,

3.

The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the case of the Assessee had been framed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 21.02.2025, as the Assessee had failed to respond to various notices. Similarly, there was no representation at all before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the same could be decided afresh after taking into account the contentions and the evidences that may be filed during the set-aside proceedings.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR did not oppose the arguments of the Ld. AR.

5.

Having considered the case records and the rival contentions, we are of the view that the orders of the authorities below were passed ex- parte. We note that there was no representation before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be served if we restore the appeal to the file of any of the authorities below. Therefore, we restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.10.2026 Deepak Prakash, P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT 5. Guard file.

//TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR BHOI KUMAR Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 12:07:08 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →