AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 15.11.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). In this case, the AO passed an ex parte order since the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the assessee approached the CIT(A), where a delay of 121 days was not condoned on grounds of inadequate or no justification for the same. The appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds challenging the action of the authorities below.
Before us, the Ld. AR filed certain medical documents pertaining to the assessee in justification for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR pleaded for another chance to present the facts before the authorities below.
The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. DR/AR. It is seen that the assessee did not provide adequate justification for any consideration u/s 249(3) of the Act. At this stage, we are in no position to examine the medical documents submitted before us, but we are conscious of the fact that in case there was good and sufficient reason for the delay then the matter should certainly be considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on the basis of medical documents available with the assessee. We would expect the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the reasons and justification for delay in a judicious manner and thereafter, if deemed fit, the appeal should be admitted for adjudication on merits. We direct accordingly.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.