NAZRUL ISLAM,NALBARI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NALBARI

PDF

ITA 123/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) was not condoned and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication on the basis of detailed reasoning in the impugned order. It is seen that even the assessment was done under Section 144 of the Act in this case. 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. ARs drew our attention to the fact that the assessee was running a hardware store in the Nalbari District of Assam. It was averred that the assessee did not have access to good tax advice as he was located in a rather remote area. His 3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee, operating a hardware store in a remote area, filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 227 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone, leading to the non-admission of the appeal. The assessee contended that the delay was due to a lack of good tax advice and knowledge of tax procedures, which also led to an ex-parte assessment under Section 144.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had given insufficient weightage to the reasons for the delay. Recognizing the importance of substantive justice, the Tribunal condoned the 227-day delay, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the delay of 227 days in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, especially when the assessee claims lack of proper tax advice and knowledge in a remote area, and faced an ex-parte assessment.

Sections Cited

Section 250, Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Babulal Chauhan, Shital Raut, CA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.11.2025

ORDER

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 18.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

1.1 The main point of dispute in this case revolves and around the fact that the delay of 227 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not condoned and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication on the 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. ARs drew our attention to the fact that the assessee was running a hardware store in the Nalbari District of Assam. It was averred that the assessee did not have access to good tax advice as he was located in a rather remote area. His tax consultant did not guide him regarding the scrutiny proceedings and thereafter, the proceedings at first appeal stage. It was a further submission that due to lack of knowledge of tax procedure and absence of adequate advice from qualified tax practitioners, the assessee has suffered an exparte order at assessment stage and thereafter even at first appeal stage where the delay of 227 days was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the assessee may be given a chance to present the facts at an appropriate level so that there is no miscarriage of justice on account of denial of the principles of natural justice.

1.3 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

We have carefully considered the submission of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given very low weightage to the reason given for said delay (extracted at page 9 of the impugned order). It is felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserves a chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 227 days. We remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be expected to be vigilant regarding any notice of hearing issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A).