JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's lack of education and reliance on a negligent tax consultant. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence and explanations.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for statistical purposes due to non-compliance. The assessee, who is poorly educated and unfamiliar with online procedures, claims his previous tax consultant was negligent. The assessee also states he was unaware of the proceedings and orders until his bank account was attached.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, and if the assessee's non-compliance due to illiteracy and counsel's negligence constitutes sufficient cause for delay and restoration of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. v. CIT20 citing302 ITR 173 · 2008 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SH. KUL BHARAT & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.05.2023 for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both appeals for statistical purposes. As both the appeals have been filed on a common issue, therefore, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT-A, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
That on the facts and in the circumstanc
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
