ANUJ KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

ITA 417/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 742 days in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal also noted that the appeals appeared to have been decided ex-parte by the Assessing Officer and that the assessee could not make a proper representation before the learned CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to represent their case. The learned CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anuj Kumar, filed appeals against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The appeals were filed with a delay of 742 days. The assessee's counsel explained the delay as being for bonafide and genuine reasons, which the Revenue's counsel did not oppose. The assessee's counsel further submitted that the original order was passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer and that the assessee could not make a proper representation before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee requested that the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the appeals should be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, given that the original order was ex-parte and the assessee could not make a proper representation? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was for bonafide and genuine reasons. The assessee also contended that the original order was ex-parte and that they were unable to make a proper representation before the learned CIT(A), hence requesting a remand to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice and fair play. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel did not oppose the assessee's request for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeals to the CIT(A).

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 D.V. Pathy, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Hearing: 28.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.06.2023 for the AYs2011-12 & 2012-13.

At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 742 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeals which were strongly opposed by the DR. 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 adjudicate the appeals.

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

3.2. We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned Assessing Officer and the assessee also could not make proper representation before the learned CIT (A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT (A), so that assessee would given one more opportunity to represent his case before the learned CIT (A). Needless to say that the learned CIT (A) will decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard 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 appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →