MAKHAN LAL GUPTA,DHANBAD V. ITO WARD 1(1), DHANBAD

ITA 367/RAN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Makhan Lal Gupta, ACC Limited against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The appeal was initially delayed by 514 days due to the notice of hearing being served to an incorrect email address. The assessee, upon receiving the notice of assessment and penalty, contacted a new tax consultant who filed the appeal. The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional and was due to a reasonable cause, thus condoning the delay and restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717038 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 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: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2024
• 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
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Makhan Lal Gupta, ACC Limited, Sindri Cement Work, ACC Colony, Sindri , Dhanbad PAN/GIR No. APPELLANT Revenue Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13/10227232 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.367/RAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Makhan Lal Gupta, ACC Limited, Sindri Cement Work, ACC Colony, Sindri , Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(10, Dhanbad No. AUZPG 5573 D 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 16.7.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), for the assessment year 2012-13. 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 Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(10, Dhanbad Respondent) (Adjn.petition) Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr. DR 2025 2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No.CIT(A), NFAC/2012- However, an adjournment petition the assessee to adjourn the case to other Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.367/RAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 2 | 4 date for attending the appeal in virtual mode. 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 514 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) and the cause for delay was not sufficiently explained. 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 514 days because the notice of hearing was served on email id [e-mail], which is not belonged to the assessee. Only when the assessee received the notice of assxessment and penalty order contacted the legal consultant who refused to take any steps against the orders passed by the AO and, therefore, he contacted another tax consultant and filed the appeal, which resulted in delay of 514 days. It was submitted that non-filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not intentional but due to reasonable cause. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.367/RAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 3 | 4 considered opinion, such delay needs to be condoned, because according to him, the notices were sent in wrong address and he was not aware of the fact and only when he came to know about passing of orders passed by the AO, he immediately contacted the legal counsel and filed the appeal, which has resulted of 514 days. In view of forgoing, we observe that there was no malafide intention of the assessee for delaying the appeal before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, we condone the delay of 514 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We also observe that the assessment has been passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act due to non-compliance of the assessee before the AO and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored 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. 4. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.367/RAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 P a g e 4 | 4 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Makhan Lal Gupta, ACC Limited, Sindri Cement Work, ACC Colony, Sindri , Dhanbad 2. The respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(10), Dhanba 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "