YASHWANT KUMAR,SAMASTIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 58 (1), DELHI

ITA 420/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 377 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal observed that the NFAC order appeared to have been decided ex-parte. It noted that despite numerous notices, no one appeared before the NFAC, leading to an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The ITAT held that this was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the ITAT 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 directed not to seek adjournments unless required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yashwant Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against an order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 377 days. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, which were opposed by the Revenue's Representative (DR). The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The assessee's counsel then submitted that the NFAC order was passed ex-parte and requested that the matter be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits. The DR did not oppose this request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the opposition from the Revenue. 2. Whether the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was ex-parte and if the matter should be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons. Furthermore, the assessee contended that the order of the NFAC was passed ex-parte and therefore, the issue should be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merit afresh. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay. However, the Revenue did not oppose the assessee's request for restoring 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

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 05.06.2024 for the AY 2017-18.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 377 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were strongly 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.

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 CIT (A). We note that despite numerous notices, none presented 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.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →