JAYANT KUMAR,MUMBAI V. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ITO WARD 3(1), JAMSHEDPUR, RANCHI

ITA 3/RAN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Jayant Kumar, against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The assessee had filed an appeal for the assessment year 2016-17, which was initially delayed due to the serious illness of family members related to COVID complications. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, leading to the current appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and the absence of malafide intention, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717042 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KHUBCHANDT PANDYA; LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jayant Kumar, Flat No.702, Ostwal Oasis, Near Ostswal Sales Office, Kanakia Road, Mira Road (E), Mumbai 401107 PAN/GIR No.ATQPK 5500 Q (Appellant Revenue Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 16/10179423 for the assessment year 2. None appear dated 21st August, 2025 is filed by IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.03/RAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jayant Kumar, Flat No.702, Ostwal Oasis, Near Ostswal Sales Office, Kanakia Road, Mira Road (E), Mumbai- Vs. National e centre/The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Patna No.ATQPK 5500 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : None(Adjn.petition) Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr. Date of Hearing : 21/08/202 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), for the assessment year 2016-17. appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition gust, 2025 is filed by the assessee to adjourn the case P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER National e-assessment centre/The Income Tax 3(1), Patna Respondent) Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr. DR 2025 2025 against the order of the ld in Appeal No.CIT(A), NFAC/2015- However, an adjournment petition assessee to adjourn the case to other Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.03/RAN /2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 2 | 4 date. We reject the adjournment petition and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, , ld Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. Ld Sr DR submitted that in this case there was delay of 177 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) and the cause for delay was not sufficiently explained. Even before the ld CIT(A) except appearing once virtually, the assessee has not filed any evidences in support of the delay. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) 3. We have heard ld Sr DR DR and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. It was the submission before the ld CIT(A) that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 177 days because of serious illness of family members on regular basis due to covid complications. It was submitted that non-filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not intentional but due to reasonable cause. We also find that the assessee has appeared before the ld CIT(A) once in virtual mode and tried to convince the non-filing of appeal. However, the ld CIT(A) relying on various judicial pronouncements, as according to him, no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section did not condone the delay in filing of appeal. In our considered opinion, such delay needs to be Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.03/RAN /2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 3 | 4 condoned, because the assessee has been claiming that due to the illness of family members, the appeal was not filed within the time. In view of forgoing, we observe that there was no malafide intention of the assessee for delaying the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We also observe that due to above reasons, the assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act was not represented by the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 177 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO with the direction to pass fresh assessment order after considering the evidences and materials on record and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to file all the evidences required for his assessment before the AO without fail. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 21/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.03/RAN /2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Arun Kumar Tiwari, Gamharia Block, Gamharia, Saraikela, Kharsawa, Jharkhand 2. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), C.H. Area, Jamshedpur 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "