PRATIK DIXIT,AURAIYA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA

ITA 54/AGR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Pratik Dixit, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed his appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The delay was attributed to issues with digital communication and lack of physical notice. The tribunal noted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on judicial proceedings and referenced Supreme Court directives that excluded certain periods from limitation calculations. The tribunal found the reasons for the delay sufficient and emphasized that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847784 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Agra
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020, Miscellaneous application No. 29/2022 in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASOON AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 54/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pratik Dixit Rishi Plaza, Auraiya, Etawah-206122, U.P Vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Etawah PAN : AJNPD6822H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prasoon Agarwal, FCA. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.03.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10435560 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.54/Agr/2026 2 | P a g e 2. At the very outset, without going on merits and after hearing the parties, it is noticed that first appeal was filed on 20.02.2025 against the assessment order dated 18.11.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act by a delay of about 1891 days. The reasons for the delay before ld CIT(A) were stated that the e-mail registered with e-filing partly belonged to the then CA/ Tax Consultant of the assessee. The assessee was never intimated of the same by the CA. This apart, no e-mail received from the Income Tax Department was forwarded to the assessee by the then CA. Assessee never received any notice in the physical form at his registered residence. Assessee came to know about said assessment order only on its initiation. Assessee, further submitted before the first appellate authority that the said delay was not intentional but due to genuine difficulties in assessing and understanding digital communications. 3. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed period. Ld CIT(A), however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine. 4. We take judicial notice of the fact that the duration of delay caused in filing appeal before the first appellate authority overlaps the period of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.54/Agr/2026 3 | P a g e spread of global pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken care of by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated 10.01.2022, directed that its order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent order dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings after exclusion of the aforesaid duration. Learned CIT(A) has, however, not condoned the said delay. 5. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice can not to be followed. This apart, we notice that the duration between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood condoned by the above quoted order of the Apex Court. The cause shown on behalf of assessee appears to us to be sufficient. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.54/Agr/2026 4 | P a g e We, accordingly, condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 12.01.2026 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e. learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced on - 27.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.03.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "