SUMAN JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the matter is restored.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer made additions under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the delay in filing was not condoned.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(3),Section 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) This appeal vide has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 22/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063171464(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income showing income of Rs.2,78,950/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 30/09/2021 under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,67,705/- by making addition of Rs.28,88,755/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 22/03/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution.
(C) Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal, although there was sufficient cause for delay. He requested that the delay in filing of appeal in the office of CIT(A) should be condoned; and issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. Both sides were heard. Materials available on record were perused. The assessee’s application for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by learned CIT(A). From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act because of which the assessee could not file appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. The Assessing Officer has also not provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. In response to a query from the Bench, in the light of the aforesaid facts, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the appeal may be decided by the Bench using discretion. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 01/09/2025
More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)
- Shri Rasik Ballabh Rastogi, Lucknow vs Income Tax Officer- 6(3), LucknowITA 445/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Sita Ram Meena Income Tax Officer… vs Vivek Omprakash Abrol, MumbaiITA 4618/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- ITO, Mumbai vs Fiero Fernandes, MumbaiITA 6372/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Jyoti Satish Naik As Wife and Legal Heir of… vs ITO, Ward 4(4), ThaneITA 2373/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
- Tirupataiah Phanithi, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-1(1), VijayawadaITA 608/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026