ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,INDORE V. DCIT - 1(1), INDORE

ITA 723/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ashok Kumar Jain, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed his first appeal due to a delay of six days in filing. The delay was attributed to a 'sufficient cause' as explained in Form No. 35. The ITAT found the delay neither intentional nor deliberate and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Additionally, the AO had initially disallowed deductions claimed under section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to issues with account confirmations and mismatches in PAN details, which the assessee later rectified. The ITAT agreed with both parties to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834690 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEEMOVEDANAPPLICATIONSEEKING; FORASSESSEECARRIEDUSTOTHEIMPUGNEDORDEROFFIRSTAPPEAL; FORREVENUEAGREESWITHTHEPRAYEROFLD.ARBUTMAKESA; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIRANJANAGRAWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 4 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.723/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 Ashok Kumar Jain 501, Pushpratna Shreepati, 10 Dilpasand Colony बनाम/ Vs. DCIT 1(1) Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABTPJ1306N Assessee by Shri Ranjan Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Printed from counselvise.com Ashok Kumar Jain ITA No. 723/Ind/2025 - AY 2020-21 Page 2 of 4 2. Although the Ld. AR for assessee moved an application seeking adjournment but at the hearing, Ld. AR requested to withdraw the same to which the Ld. DR for revenue did not have any objection. Accordingly, the adjournment is not required by parties. The hearing of case is proceeded. 3. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the impugned order of first-appeal passed wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay occurred in filing of first-appeal before him and thereby dismissed asessee’s appeal summarily in a few lines. However, Ld. AR submitted that there was a petty delay of only 6 days before CIT(A) and that too occurred due to a sufficient cause as explained by assessee in Form No. 35, the relevant portion of Form No. 35 is scanned below: 4. Ld. AR requested that in the situation, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken a judicious view and accepted the assessee’s explanation and admitted assessee’s first-appeal. He requested this bench to accept the explanation advanced by assessee and condone the delay. Ld. DR for revenue left the issue to the wisdom of bench. Having regard to the explanation given by assessee in Form No. 35, as re-produced above, we are Printed from counselvise.com Ashok Kumar Jain ITA No. 723/Ind/2025 - AY 2020-21 Page 3 of 4 satisfied that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the small delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing first appeal is condoned. 5. Ld. AR next drew us to Para 4.7 of assessment-order to show that the AO has made disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 57 of the interest paid by assessee to various lenders because the assessee was not able to file a/c confirmations of lenders at that time or because there were some mismatches in PANs of the lenders due to inadvertent errors in certain alphabets of PANs. However, the assessee has subsequently collected a/c confirmations from all lenders and also compiled correct details of PANs. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this case ought to be remanded to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after considering assessee’s submissions. 6. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. 7. In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be Printed from counselvise.com Ashok Kumar Jain ITA No. 723/Ind/2025 - AY 2020-21 Page 4 of 4 caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 8. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 06.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 06.02.2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "