JAYANT KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ITO WARD 3(1), JAMSHEDPUR, RANCHI

PDF

ITA 3/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: the Id CIT(A) and the cause for delay was not sufficiently explained. Even before the Id CIT(A) except appearing once virtually, the assessee has not filed any evidences in support of the delay. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order of the Id CIT(A).4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was delayed by 177 days, citing serious illness of family members due to Covid complications. The CIT(A) dismissed this appeal as time-barred under Section 249(2) r/w 249(3) for lack of sufficient cause. The assessee subsequently appealed to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order, which originated from an assessment under Section 147 r.w.s 144B.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the 177-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), observing that there was no malafide intention on the assessee's part due to family illness. The ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment under Section 147 r.w.s 144B, directing the AO to consider all evidences and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the 177-day delay in filing the appeal, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

Sections Cited

Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, Section 144B of the Income Tax Act

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 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), in Appeal No.CIT(A), NFAC/2015- 16/10179423 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17.

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 assessee to adjourn the case to other

P a g e 1 | 4 /2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 date. 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 177 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) and the cause for delay was not sufficiently explained. Even before the ld CIT(A) except appearing once virtually, the assessee has not filed any evidences in support of the delay. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A)

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 177 days because of serious illness of family members on regular basis due to covid complications. It was submitted that non-filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not intentional but due to reasonable cause. We also find that the assessee has appeared before the ld CIT(A) once in virtual mode and tried to convince the non-filing of appeal. 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 considered opinion, such delay needs to be P a g e 2 | 4 /2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 condoned, because the assessee has been claiming that due to the illness of family members, the appeal was not filed within the time. In view of forgoing, we observe that there was no malafide intention of the assessee for delaying the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We also observe that due to above reasons, the assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act was not represented by the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 177 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and restore the issue 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.