JIA MONGRI SANGMA,NONGALBIRA vs. ITO, SHILLONG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 443/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay of 312 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC were genuine and bona fide. Consequently, the delay was condoned. The order of the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, was set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the NFAC with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. For penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 442 & 443/GTY/2025), since the quantum appeal was restored, the penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the NFAC were quashed as their foundation would not survive. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if required. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the penalty appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, JiaMongriSangma, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.10.2025. The appeals pertain to Assessment Year 2021-22 and involve penalties levied under Section 271AAC(i) and Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment order was framed ex-parte under Section 144/144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 23.12.2022 due to the assessee's non-compliance. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for a delay of 312 days in filing, without condoning it. The assessee contended that the delay was due to bona fide and genuine reasons and that the NFAC's order violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 312 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considering the assessee's reasons for the delay were bona fide and genuine, and whether the NFAC's dismissal in limine violated principles of natural justice (turning on Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The delay of 312 days was due to bona fide and genuine reasons. The NFAC's dismissal of the appeal in limine without condoning the delay violated the principles of natural justice and fair play, necessitating an opportunity for a hearing on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request for condoning the delay and restoring the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(i)

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 Nitin Sarma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR
Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 30.10.2025 for the AY 2021-22. The penalties were levied u/s 271 AAC(i) & 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment has been framed by the ld. AO u/s 144/ 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 23.12.2022, when the assessee

3.

The learned DR on the other hand did not object for the same.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the order has been passed by ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 312 days. As we found the reasons to be genuine and bona fide, therefore, condoning the same, we restore the appeal to the file of the Learned AO with a direction to decide the same on merit, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

& 443/GTY/2025 5. Since we have already restored the assessment order while adjudicating the quantum appeal of the assessee in therefore, the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) would also stand quashed as the very foundation of levy of penalties in the case of the assessee would not mo survive. Further, the ld. AO is given the liberty to re- initiate the penalty proceedings afresh, if required.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →