NAHAKPAM BABULIN MEITEI,WANGJING vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, IMPHAL

ITA 194/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons, and therefore, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal also found that the ends of justice would be well served by admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 29. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh after taking into account all the additional evidences and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nahakpam Babulin Meitei, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 07.02.2024, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed 160 days beyond the prescribed limitation period, attributed to the law and order situation in Meghalaya. The assessee also sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 and requested the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Revenue did not object to condoning the delay or admitting the additional evidence. The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the additional evidence, and set aside the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal, which was 160 days, is liable to be condoned? (Question of fact, turning on the explanation for delay). 2. Whether the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 29 are liable to be admitted? (Question of fact, turning on the nature and relevance of the evidence). 3. Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after admitting the additional evidence? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and effective adjudication). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to bonafide and genuine reasons, specifically the law and order situation in Meghalaya. The assessee also contended that additional evidence filed under Rule 29 should be admitted, and the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication incorporating this evidence. The assessee relied on the principle that ends of justice would be served by admitting the evidence. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. The Revenue also did not oppose the assessee's contention regarding the admission of additional evidence and restoration of the appeal to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AR

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Hearing: 10.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 07.02.2024 for the AY 2017-18.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 160 days, which is stated to be on account of worst law and order situation in the state of Meghalaya. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and

At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences under Rule 29, which may be admitted and the issue may be restored to the file of the ld. AO.

The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the contention of the assessee.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ends of justice will be well served if the additional evidences are admitted and appeal of the assessee is restored for re-adjudication after taking into account all these evidences. Consequently, we set aside the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to denovo adjudicate after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →