JALGAON JAMOD LOKSANCHALIT SADHAN KENDRA,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD 1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 333/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 June 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the demise of the assessee's accountant and the circumstances presented. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned order was ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee's accountant passed away, causing a delay of 112 days in filing the present appeal and 167 days in filing the first appeal. The assessee provided a death certificate as evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable on account of the death of the assessee's accountant? Whether the ex-parte order requires to be set aside and the case remanded for fresh adjudication on merits?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ld. CA
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. D.R
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 19.11.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2020- 21.

2.

In the instant case, at the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 112 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed as under:

“ That due to demise of Assessee’s accountant on dated 21.12.2024 the delay in filing of appeal before this Court as well as before the Ld. Commissioner has been occurred. The delay was unintentional, malafide and therefore the delay may be condoned.”

In support of aforesaid claim, the Assessee also filed the death certificate of Shri Rajesh Ramesh Thakre (Assessee’s accountant).

3.

This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly Shri Rajesh Ramesh Thakre (Assessee’s accountant) has expired on 21.12.2024 and the Assessee has claimed “That because of long illness said person had expired who was handling the case of the Assessee and the Assesse has also mentioned the fact at column No.15 of form no.35 that it was busy in hospital work, so unable to file the appeal in time. So please consider the condonation of delay.”

4.

Thus considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 112 days in filing the instant appeal as well as 167 days occurred in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner.

5.

Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that impugned order is an ex-parte because of the aforesaid reasons and hence, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit qua additions/disallowances made by the AO vide assessment order dated 28.09.2022 u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act.

6.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in open Court 26.06.2025 .

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →