ZIAUL HASAN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(1), ETAH
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) after a delay of 1394 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the inordinate delay. The assessee's representative argued that the order was passed manually, without DIN, and not served through proper channels, and the delay was due to absence or improper service of the order. The Revenue objected to condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the assessment order being passed in the wrong name and without a PAN reference. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the assessment order was correctly passed.
Sections Cited
1394 days delay
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ : AGRA.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ : AGRA. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.381/AGR/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ziaul Hasan, vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(1), 20/4, Chatta Jalesar, Etah. S.O. Etah, Etah – 207 302 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AAEPQ4523A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate Shri Gurfan Ahmad, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 30.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 1394 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of an
2 ITA No.381/AGR/2025
inordinate delay of 1394 days and the ld. CIT (A) erroneously presumed that the order was served electronically despite the fact that : (i) The ruder was passed manually and does not bear any Document Identification Number (DIN); (ii) The assessment proceedings were also conducted manually and not through the income tax e-portal; (iii) No notices were served to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings; (iv) The order was not served by any known mode of communication prescribed under the Act.
Thus, he submitted that the CIT (A) erred in rejecting the condonation petition, despite clear documentary evidence of first service on 22.09.2023. He further submitted that even if there were to be any delay, it was due to the absence or service of the order and the assessee has sufficient and bona fide cause and the delay, if any, is neither intentional nor due to negligence. Further, he submitted that the ld. CIT (A) failed to adjudicate the case on merits. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) may be condoned and the appeal be restored to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide on merits. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same and submitted that the delay is inordinate and should not be condoned.
3 ITA No.381/AGR/2025
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee, we also observe that the assessment order was passed in wrong name and without any reference to PAN. Therefore, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause in delay filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the same. Further, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh as per law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Assessing Officer on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of October, 2025.
Sd/- sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:28.10.2025 TS
