NAZRUL ISLAM,NALBARI V. ASSESSING OFFICER, NALBARI

ITA 123/GTY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nazrul Islam, the appellant, who faced issues with the Income Tax Department regarding the delay in filing an appeal against an assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary dispute was the non-condonation of a 227-day delay in filing the appeal, which was not admitted for adjudication by the CIT(A). The appellant, represented by Babulal Chauhan and Shital Raut, CA, argued that the delay was due to lack of access to good tax advice and inadequate guidance from his tax consultant, leading to an exparte order at the assessment stage and the first appeal stage. The Department, represented by Kausik Ray, JCIT, supported the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the circumstances of the case, decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786687 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 123/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nazrul Islam, C/o Abdul Hamid, Rampur,, Nalbari, Assam 781312, Nalbari [PAN: ABPP10943J] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Office, Gopal Bazar, Alternate Road, Nalbari, Assam, Nalbari - 781335 ...…..…................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Babulal Chauhan, Shital Raut, CA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.11.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 18.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1 The main point of dispute in this case revolves and around the fact that the delay of 227 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not condoned and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication on the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 123/GTY/2025 Nazrul Islam 2 basis of detailed reasoning in the impugned order. It is seen that even the assessment was done under Section 144 of the Act in this case. 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. ARs drew our attention to the fact that the assessee was running a hardware store in the Nalbari District of Assam. It was averred that the assessee did not have access to good tax advice as he was located in a rather remote area. His tax consultant did not guide him regarding the scrutiny proceedings and thereafter, the proceedings at first appeal stage. It was a further submission that due to lack of knowledge of tax procedure and absence of adequate advice from qualified tax practitioners, the assessee has suffered an exparte order at assessment stage and thereafter even at first appeal stage where the delay of 227 days was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the assessee may be given a chance to present the facts at an appropriate level so that there is no miscarriage of justice on account of denial of the principles of natural justice. 1.3 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 2. We have carefully considered the submission of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given very low weightage to the reason given for said delay (extracted at page 9 of the impugned order). It is felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserves a chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 227 days. We remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be expected to be vigilant regarding any notice of hearing issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A). 3. In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 123/GTY/2025 Nazrul Islam 3 Sd/- Sd/- [Manomohan Das] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 17.11.2025 AK, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "