SENTILEMBA,MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 23/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of substantial justice. The Tribunal observed that by not condoning the delay, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. It was also noted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case and that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the NFAC for adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the NFAC and provide all relevant documents and evidences. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sentilemba, proprietor of M/s Local Hardware, filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the NFAC due to a delay of 144 days. The assessee contended that the delay was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons and that the NFAC's order violated principles of natural justice. The assessee requested the issue be restored to the NFAC for adjudication on merits. The Revenue relied on the NFAC's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the NFAC was liable to be dismissed in limine on grounds of delay, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair play, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (implied). Assessee's contentions: The Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the delay of 144 days was due to bona fide and genuine reasons. The dismissal of the appeal without condoning the delay violated principles of natural justice and fair play, necessitating a restoration of the issue to the NFAC for a hearing on merits. Revenue's contentions: The Learned CIT-DR relied on the order of the NFAC.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Sharma, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 13/03/2026Pronounced: 13/03/2026

Date of hearing: 13/03/2026 Date of pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

PER: BENCH

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 20/11/2025 for the AY 2020-21.

2.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the Learned CIT (A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 144 days, which was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Learned CIT (A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly, the assessee needs to be given

3.

The learned CIT-DR on the other hand relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record , we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay and without considering the merit of the case. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of the substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. It is noticed from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) and also directed to provide all the relevant documents and evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A).

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/03/2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →