Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, Badsara, Bhaiyathan, Surajpur, Districtsurajpur, Chhattisgarh v. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur, District Surajpur,Chhattisgarh

SHYNAAJAY Digitally signed bySHYNA AJAYDN: cn=SHYNA AJAY,o=PERSONAL,st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 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 TaxAppellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No.363/RPR/2023) Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, Badsara, Bhaiyathan, Surajpur, DistrictSurajpur, 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- ,A.Y-2018-2019 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant:Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents :Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate 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 IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was admitted for hearing on22.4.2025 by formulating the following substantial question oflaw: -Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was admitted for hearing on22.4.2025 by formulating the following substantial question oflaw: - ““Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissingthe appeal barred by limitation holding that thethe appeal barred by limitation holding that the appellant assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay, byrecording a finding which is perverse to therecord?”recording a finding which is perverse to therecord?” 2. The appellant/assessee has preferred an appeal before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for shortthe "ITAT") in the Online Portal via e-filing mode, against theorder 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 notIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for shortthe "ITAT") in the Online Portal via e-filing mode, against theorder 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 served with a notice of hearing in respect of the said appeal.Ultimately, the appeal came to be dismissed by theimpugned order passed by the ITATholding that noapplication for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing theappeal has been filed. As such, for want of notice, theappellant could not appear and file such application. Hence,this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section260A of the Act. 3. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellantwould submit that the notice of the appeal was not served onthe appellant/assessee, therefore, he did not appear and filean application for condonation of delay. Hence, the impugnedorder deserves to be set-aside. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellantwould submit that the notice of the appeal was not served onthe appellant/assessee, therefore, he did not appear and filean application for condonation of delay. Hence, the impugnedorder deserves to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for theRevenue, would support the impugned order. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for theRevenue, would support the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties andconsidered their rival submissions made herein-above andwent through the material available on record with utmostcircumspection.considered their rival submissions made herein-above andwent through the material available on record with utmostcircumspection. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for theRevenue, would support the impugned order. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for theRevenue, would support the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties andconsidered their rival submissions made herein-above andwent through the material available on record with utmostcircumspection.considered their rival submissions made herein-above andwent through the material available on record with utmostcircumspection. 6. Admittedly, the appellant had filed an appeal before the ITATagainst the order of the CIT (Appeals) in the Online Portal viae-filing mode, however, thereafter, although notices are statedto have been issued to the appellant for hearing of the Admittedly, the appellant had filed an appeal before the ITATagainst the order of the CIT (Appeals) in the Online Portal viae-filing mode, however, thereafter, although notices are statedto have been issued to the appellant for hearing of the Shyna appeal, but there is no evidence on record to show that theappellant was served with any such notice before hearing ofthe appeal. As such, non-appearance and non-filing of theapplication for condonation of delay was bonafide andunintentional. 7. For the foregoing, the impugned order is set-aside. Thematter is remitted to the ITAT, Raipur with a direction torestore the case to its original number and dispose of thesame in accordance with law. For the foregoing, the impugned order is set-aside. Thematter is remitted to the ITAT, Raipur with a direction torestore the case to its original number and dispose of thesame in accordance with law. 8. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the ITAT (Appeals) on1.7.2025.1.7.2025. 10. It is made clear that the notice is not required to be issued.The appellant shall appear before the ITAT (Appeals) and filean application for condonation of delay. The appellant shall appear before the ITAT (Appeals) and filean application for condonation of delay. 11. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the Appeal isallowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as toallowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Judge Judge