ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

ITA 586/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT took judicial notice of the Supreme Court's orders regarding the extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 and found the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient. It condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order with a delay of 286 days, citing spinal treatment and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, refusing to condone the delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the 286-day delay in filing the first appeal, considering the assessee's medical condition and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.02.2026Pronounced: 18.02.2026

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.10.25 passed in appeal No NFAC/2011-12/10003090 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing first appeal.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 17.10.20 against the assessment order dated 05.12.19 passed u/s. 144 read with section of the Act, by a delay of about 286 days. Reasons for delay shown before ld CIT(A) were that the assessee was under spi

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →