RAHUL LAPANG,RI-BHOI, MEGHALAYA vs. ITO W-BYRNIHAT, BYRNIHAT, MEGHALAYA

ITA 24/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2016-173 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee before the ITAT was barred by limitation by 43 days. The Tribunal condoned this delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, as the learned DR did not raise any objection. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning a delay of 343 days. The Tribunal found the reasons for this delay to be genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rahul Lapang, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)). The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was barred by limitation by 43 days. The assessee's counsel argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning a delay of 343 days, which was due to bona fide and genuine reasons. The revenue's representative did not object to condoning the delay. The ITAT noted that the delay before the ITAT was also for bonafide and genuine reasons and condoned it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal by the assessee? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 343 days, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning a delay of 343 days, which was attributable to bona fide and genuine reasons. The assessee contended that this action violated the principles of natural justice and fair play, and therefore, the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for one more opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The learned DR did not raise any objection regarding the condonation of the delay before the ITAT. The learned DR also did not object to the assessee's request for restoration of the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

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 Sidhant Sharma, AR

For Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR

Hearing: 13.03.2026Pronounced: 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 27.09.2025 for the AY 2016-17.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 43 days. 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 genuine reasons, hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

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

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the order has been passed by CIT (A) dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 343 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 CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit, after affording 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 →