SURENDRA KUMAR ,PATNA vs. ITO WARD4(1), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 342/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 385 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the appeal was apparently decided ex-parte by the NFAC, and that despite numerous notices, no one appeared before the NFAC. Consequently, the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, which the Tribunal found to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also cautioned not to seek adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Surendra Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against an order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed 385 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, which were opposed by the Revenue's representative. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The assessee's counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte by both the Assessing Officer and the NFAC, and requested the matter be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits. The Revenue's representative did not oppose this request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condonable, considering the reasons provided. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is sustainable, and if not, whether the matter should be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to bonafide and genuine reasons. - The order of the NFAC was passed ex-parte, as were the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. - The matter should be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue initially opposed the condonation of delay. - The Revenue did not oppose the assessee's request for restoration of the appeal to the NFAC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

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 Manish Rastogi, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Hearing: 28.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

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 01.05.2024 for the AY 2017-18.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 385 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which was opposed by the ld. DR. 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.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was passed ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as before the learned Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed

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

3.2. We after hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as by the learned Assessing Officer. We note that despite numerous notices, none represented before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex- parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored 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. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →