RUBY DEVI,BETTIAH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), BETTIAH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 94/PAT/2025Status: HeardITAT Patna18 July 2025AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the delay of 58 days in filing the appeals was for genuine and sufficient reasons, and accordingly, the condonation petitions were allowed, and the appeals were admitted for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the appellate authority to state the points of determination, the decision on the issues raised, and the reasons for such decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not furnished all the required details to the AO. To serve the ends of justice, the ITAT restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to decide them afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to make necessary compliance before the AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ruby Devi, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2016-17. There was a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals, for which the assessee filed condonation petitions. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be genuine and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that while there was some compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO), there was no compliance before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had also failed to decide the appeals on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had also not furnished details as called for by the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are to be admitted for adjudication, considering the delay in filing? 2. Whether the CIT(A) has complied with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by deciding the appeals on merits and providing reasons for the decision? Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeals was for genuine and sufficient reasons, and therefore, the appeals should be admitted. The assessee also implicitly sought a decision on merits, as the CIT(A) had failed to do so. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding the issues.

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 RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Monark Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 07.07.2025Pronounced: 18.07.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

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 28.10.2024, 29.10.2024 for the AYs 2015- 16 & 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 58 days in filing all the appeals by the assessee for which the condonation petitions were filed. After hearing both the sides and after going through the contents of the condonation petition, we are of the opinion that the delay is for genuine and sufficient reasons and accordingly, condoned and appeals are admitted for adjudication.

3.

After hearing both the sides and after perusing the facts on record including the appellate orders as well as the assessment orders, we

4.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →