ARBIND KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4 (1), PATNA

ITA 293/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2016-173 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and genuine, especially as the Revenue's counsel did not object. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Furthermore, the case was not fully represented before the learned CIT(A). Under these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. This would allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arbind Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated May 21, 2024, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 323 days. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, and the Revenue's counsel did not object to the condonation. The assessee's counsel further submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the case was not fully represented before the learned CIT(A). The assessee requested that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision on merits after filing complete details and evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the order of the learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, given that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the case was not fully represented before the CIT(A)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons. The assessee also contended that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and that the case could not be fully represented before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee prayed for the issue to be restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision on merits after providing complete details and evidence. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's counsel did not oppose the condonation of delay. The Revenue's counsel also did not oppose the assessee's prayer for restoring the matter to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

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 21.05.2024 for the AY 2016-17.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 323 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. 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 and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

3.1. The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the counsel of the assessee.

3.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the learned Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Act, when the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Similarly, the case was not fully represented before the learned CIT (A). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be well served if the appeal is restored to the fileof the learned Assessing Officer for denovo re- adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT (A) and restore the appeal to the fileof the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →