VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

TAXC/146/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was dismissed by the ITAT due to a delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant did not file an application for condonation of delay for 68 days. The appellant contended that he did not receive any notice of the hearing, which led to the absence of the required application. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the lack of evidence of notice service, set aside the ITAT's order and remitted the case back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670150 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: High Court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: GYAN SHUKLA
• Keywords: Appeal Dismissal; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; ITAT
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:22871-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T AXC No. 146 of 2024 (Arising out of order dated 20.3.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No.363/RPR/2023) Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, Badsara, Bhaiyathan, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Ambikapur, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) Pan-AFFPJ1068R, A.Y-2018-2019 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 DIVISION BENCH Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ. Order on Board 10/06/2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This tax appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was admitted for hearing on 22.4.2025 by formulating the following substantial question of law: - ““Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal barred by limitation holding that the appellant assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?” 2. The appellant/assessee has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for short the \"ITAT\") in the Online Portal via e-filing mode, against the order dated 27.7.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {for short the \"CIT (Appeals)\"}. However, thereafter, he was not 3 served with a notice of hearing in respect of the said appeal. Ultimately, the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order passed by the ITAT holding that no application for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal has been filed. As such, for want of notice, the appellant could not appear and file such application. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Act. 3. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the notice of the appeal was not served on the appellant/assessee, therefore, he did not appear and file an application for condonation of delay. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for the Revenue, would support the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the appellant had filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT (Appeals) in the Online Portal via e-filing mode, however, thereafter, although notices are stated to have been issued to the appellant for hearing of the 4 appeal, but there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was served with any such notice before hearing of the appeal. As such, non-appearance and non-filing of the application for condonation of delay was bonafide and unintentional. 7. For the foregoing, the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the ITAT, Raipur with a direction to restore the case to its original number and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 8. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the ITAT (Appeals) on 1.7.2025. 10. It is made clear that the notice is not required to be issued. The appellant shall appear before the ITAT (Appeals) and file an application for condonation of delay. 11. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Shyna "