MAKHAN LAL GUPTA,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 367/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 August 2025AY 2013-14Bench: S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 514-day delay, finding no malafide intent on the assessee's part. The assessment, originally passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 due to non-compliance, was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing due opportunity and considering all evidences from the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 514 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed as time-barred, citing insufficient cause for the delay under Sections 249(3) r/w 249(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee attributed the delay to incorrect notice delivery and difficulties in contacting legal representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the 514-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the assessment should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 249(2),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN & RATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr
Hearing: 21/08/202Pronounced: 21/08/2

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 16.7.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), in Appeal No.CIT(A), NFAC/2012- 13/10227232 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

None appear appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition However, an adjournment petition dated 21st August, 2025 is filed by gust, 2025 is filed by the assessee to adjourn the case the assessee to adjourn the case to other

P a g e 1 | 4 date for attending the appeal in virtual mode. We reject the adjournment petition and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, , ld Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. Ld Sr DR submitted that in this case there was delay of 514 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) and the cause for delay was not sufficiently explained. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A)

3.

We have heard ld Sr DR DR and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. It was the submission before the ld CIT(A) that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 514 days because the notice of hearing was served on email id javedmohan3@gmail.com, which is not belonged to the assessee. Only when the assessee received the notice of assxessment and penalty order contacted the legal consultant who refused to take any steps against the orders passed by the AO and, therefore, he contacted another tax consultant and filed the appeal, which resulted in delay of 514 days. It was submitted that non-filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not intentional but due to reasonable cause. However, the ld CIT(A) relying on various judicial pronouncements, as according to him, no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section did not condone the delay in filing of appeal. In our

P a g e 2 | 4 considered opinion, such delay needs to be condoned, because according to him, the notices were sent in wrong address and he was not aware of the fact and only when he came to know about passing of orders passed by the AO, he immediately contacted the legal counsel and filed the appeal, which has resulted of 514 days. In view of forgoing, we observe that there was no malafide intention of the assessee for delaying the appeal before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, we condone the delay of 514 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We also observe that the assessment has been passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act due to non-compliance of the assessee before the AO and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored to the file of the AO with the direction to pass fresh assessment order after considering the evidences and materials on record and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to file all the evidences required for his assessment before the AO without fail.

4.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025.

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →