MOHAMMED HELALUDDIN AHMED,HOJAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD, NAGAON
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning penalty under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 47-day delay in filing, which was not condoned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 47-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merit after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM
Per George Mathan, JM:
These are appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1080193539(1) vide order dated 30.08.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14. The penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 26.08.2022 by the ITO, Ward-Nagaon.
None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjay Jha represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. DR that the order of the ld. CIT (A) is an ex-parte order. A perusal of the CIT (A)’s order noticed that the
The learned DR on the other hand left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench.
After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the learned CIT (A) has not condoned the delay of 47 days for late filing of the appeal for the reason that the delay has no bonafide and genuineness reason. We have gone through the reasons attributable to late filing of appeal and found that the reasons are bonafide and genuine and accordingly, we condone the delay of 47 days. In the same breath, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In respect of ITA No. 330/GTY/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A).
We are of the view that as the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A), the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is also to be decided after deciding the quantum appeal and therefore restore to CIT (A) for adjudication after giving opportunity to assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 11.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
