MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI V. ITO WARD 2(3), RAMGARH

ITA 17/RAN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Manoj Kumar Singh, against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee had filed a condonation petition explaining the delay was due to his medical treatment and his father's health issues. The Tribunal found that there was no malafide intention behind the delay and thus condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717145 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PER BENCH; KHUBCHANDT PANDYA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY JALAN
• 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 Manoj Kumar Singh, 2C Phase, 3, Rameshwaram Apartament, Ashok Kunj, Argora, Ranchi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Revenue by Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 16/10210594 for the assessment year 2. Shri Vinay Jalan T. Pandya , ld Sr DR 3. At the outset, ld AR of the assessee submitted dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. It was the IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.17/RAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manoj Kumar Singh, 2C Phase, 3, Rameshwaram Apartament, Ashok Kunj, Argora, Ranchi Vs. ITO, Ward -2(3), Ranchi .BUGPS 0456 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vinay Jalan, AR Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 19/08/202 Date of Pronouncement : 19/08/2 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 20.11.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), for the assessment year 2016-17. Vinay Jalan, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. It was the P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2(3), Ranchi Respondent) 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/2015- appeared for the assessee. Shri Khubchand that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. It was the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.17/RAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 2 | 4 submission that before the ld CIT(A), the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 266 days and the assessee has filed condonation petition, wherein, it was mentioned that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment and during that time, his focus was on his health and recovery, due to which, he could not check the notices sent by the department. Besides this, it was also stated that his 77 year old father has a history of cardiac issues having suffered severe heart attack in December, 2015. He submitted that by not filing the appeal, the assessee would not get benefit rather he will be suffered financial difficulties. He submitted that non-filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not intentional but due to reasonable cause. He also submitted that the Assessing Officer has also passed assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act due to non-compliance to the notices. He prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and the issue be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). He argued that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable before the learned CIT(A) due to abnormal delay of 266 days. The assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for the substantial delay and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same in limine Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.17/RAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 3 | 4 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the delay of 266 days in filing of appeal was not condoned, 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 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, as delay in filing of appeal was not condoned, as a result of which the appeal was not admitted and was rejected accordingly. In our considered opinion, such delay needs to be condoned, because the assessee has been claiming that due to his illness and also due to his father’s heart attack during the said period, he could not check the notices sent by the department. 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 144 of the Act was not represented by the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 266 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.17/RAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 4 | 4 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 19/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Manoj Kumar Singh, 2C Phase, 3, Rameshwaram Apartament, Ashok Kunj, Argora, Ranchi 2. The respondent: ITO, Ward -2(3), Ranchi 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "