ABDUL IRFAN ABDUL AJIJ SHEIKH,WARDHA vs. ITO, WARD-2, WARDHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee's ill health. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 20 days, citing ill health supported by a medical certificate. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay of 447 days without condoning it.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned due to reasonable cause. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 24/11/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.
2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that appellant did not submit medical proof of delayed filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical ground of delay without going into merits of the case.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the merits of the case that the Account no.14000012 in 2 Abdul Irfan Abdul Ajij Sheikh ITA no.78/Nag./2024
Aditya Anagha Multistate Bank did not belong to the Assessee, as was stated before Ld. CIT(A), therefore the addition of bank deposit of Rs. 3,90,550/- as unexplained money u/s 69A in the hands of Assessee is bad in law, illegal and deserves to be deleted in toto.”
During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed Affidavit in support of condonation of delay thereby requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal is due to the ill health of the assessee and in support of which, the assessee has also furnished medical certificate.
After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the affidavit, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.
3. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that before the learned CIT(A) also, there was a delay of 447 days in filing the first appeal and the learned CIT(A) has simply rejected the appeal filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning the delay. While considering the explanation of the assessee, we find that there is a prima– facie case to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and in view of the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law, we hereby condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and set
3 Abdul Irfan Abdul Ajij Sheikh ITA no.78/Nag./2024 aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) while restoring the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to condone the delay and pass speaking order on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avoid seeking unnecessary adjournment, except under exceptional case.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/10/2024
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026