VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (2), PATNA

ITA 47/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 June 2025AY 2015-163 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 283 days in filing the appeal. The reasoning was that the delay was due to reasonable causes explained by the assessee, and there was no deliberate attempt to delay the filing. In the interest of justice and fair play, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was to be heard on merits. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the impugned order passed by the NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal without looking into the merits of the case. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish replies and relevant details/evidences. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless reasonably required. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijay Kumar Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.02.2024, for Assessment Year 2015-16. There was a delay of 283 days in filing the appeal. The assessee, a 70-year-old individual, attributed the delay to age-related medical issues, preventing him from approaching his counsel earlier. The ITAT was requested to condone this delay. The assessee's counsel also argued that the NFAC's order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating principles of natural justice. The revenue did not object to the assessee's prayer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 283 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of age-related medical issues and the absence of mala fide intention. Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to genuine and reasonable causes beyond the assessee's control, specifically age-related medical issues affecting a 70-year-old individual. The delay was unavoidable, and condoning it would be in the interest of justice, allowing the case to be heard on merits. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay, other than not objecting to the assessee's prayer. 2. Whether the order passed by the NFAC under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside for being passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contention: The NFAC's order was passed without affording the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case, rendering it bereft of natural justice and liable for setting aside. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the assessee's prayer on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Sinha, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Hearing: 21.05.2025Pronounced: 04.06.2025

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 02.02.2024 for the AY 2015-16.

Shri Shailendra Sinha appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT appeared on behalf of the revenue.

At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is delay of 283 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reasons for delay as explained by ld. Authorized Representative that assessee is a 70 years old age person and suffering from age related medical issues, therefore he could only approach the counsel on 02.02.2025, whereas the ld. CIT (A) passed and served the order online on 02.02.2024. Due to this, there was an unavoidable delay of 283 days in filing the appeal. The ld. Authorized Representative requested to condone the delay emphasizing that the delay is due to

We after considering the submissions made by the ld. Authorized Representative and facts placed before us, we are of the view that the delay of 283 days in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause as explained by the assessee and there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay in filing. In the interest of justice and fair play, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal will now be heard on merits.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Act was without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and as such the order is bereft of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.

We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that instant impugned order passed by NFAC was dismissed without looking into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We therefore, feel it necessary and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised on merits to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for necessary adjudication for which reasonable opportunity to be provided to the assessee to furnish the reply and file relevant details and evidences if needed. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th June, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →