JANARDHANAN NAMBOODIRI MUTHATHI ELLAM,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 3, KANNUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 182 days, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed 182 days late. The assessee had an addition of Rs. 35,73,099/- confirmed on long-term capital gains. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), resulting in an ex parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after an ex parte order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM
O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 07/01/2025. The impugned order is emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur (in short, ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 29/03/2023.
Janardhanan Namboodiri 2. The Registry has reported that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 182 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit dated 23.09.2025, which is placed in record. In the said affidavit, the assessee has explained reason of delay. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time, which resulted in the delay.
The Ld. DR, though heard, has not raised any serious objection to the explanation tendered by the assessee.
In our considered view, the explanation advanced by the assessee constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 182 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and taken up for adjudication.
We find that the assessment was framed U/s 147 of the Act & addition was confirmed amount to Rs. 35,73,099/- related to income from long term capital gain. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass the order ex parte. The Ld. AR has, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that there is a sufficient cause with the assessee for not appearing before the revenue authority, which led to passing the appellate order exparte, without considering the merit of the case. We restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish the proper documents before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider all documentary evidence and submissions to be filed by the assessee and hearing the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to cause prejudice in the proceedings before the appellate authority. It is further directed that the assessee shall diligently cooperate in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the set aside appeal.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
