Bibi Sahjadi Bano Vs ITO (ITAT Patna)
Digital Unawareness and Illness Constitute Sufficient Cause: ITAT Condones Two Delays and Orders Fresh Assessment
Two Delays, Two Separate Explanations
The Patna Tribunal condoned both a 125-day delay in filing the Tribunal appeal and a 108-day delay in filing the first appeal. It accepted the circumstances involving an elderly assessee’s lack of literacy and computer knowledge, missed electronic communications, dependence on an internet café operator and health difficulties.
Applying the principle that justified delay should yield to substantial justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The relief restored an opportunity to contest the assessment; it did not establish that the additions were incorrect.
Assessment Followed by Dismissal on Limitation
The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on 31 January 2024 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, making certain additions.
The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), through the National Faceless Appeal Centre. However, that appeal was filed 108 days beyond time.
By order dated 30 January 2026, the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on limitation. The assessment dispute consequently remained without adjudication on merits at the first appellate stage.
The assessee then approached the Tribunal, but this second appeal was also delayed, this time by 125 days. The Tribunal therefore had to consider the explanation for its own appeal before examining the rejection of the first appeal.
Online Appellate Order Escaped the Assessee’s Attention
For the delay before the Tribunal, the assessee explained that she was illiterate and lacked computer knowledge. The first appellate order had been passed online and had escaped her attention.
According to the condonation application, the dismissal came to her knowledge only when her son checked an email containing a notice of demand. Necessary steps were then taken to consult a tax professional and file the Tribunal appeal.
The Tribunal accepted these reasons and condoned the 125-day delay. Its conclusion was based on the explanation presented concerning delayed awareness and the subsequent steps taken.
The order did not hold that electronic communication was legally invalid. The issue considered was whether the circumstances explained the failure to appeal within the prescribed period.
First Appeal Delayed by Communication and Health Difficulties
The explanation for the 108-day delay before the Commissioner (Appeals) involved additional circumstances.
The assessee stated that the email address and mobile number registered on the income-tax portal belonged to an internet café owner. Consequently, the departmental communications did not reach her attention in the manner necessary for timely action.
She also referred to her advanced age, severe back pain, high blood sugar and blood-pressure problems.
These circumstances were placed before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the delay had not been condoned. The Tribunal examined that refusal in the light of the explanation already available on record.
Revenue Opposes Relief; Assessee Absent at Hearing
No representative appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal. Considering the issue involved, the Bench proceeded after hearing the Departmental Representative and examining the available material.
The Revenue strongly supported the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order. It argued that sufficient cause had not been shown for the delay in filing the first appeal and that dismissal on limitation was justified.
The Tribunal nevertheless assessed the explanation independently. The assessee’s absence at the hearing did not prevent consideration of the condonation grounds documented in the record.
The decision thus rested on the stated circumstances and the material before the Bench, rather than on fresh oral submissions from the assessee.
Liberal Approach Where the Cause Is Bona Fide
The Tribunal acknowledged that an assessee is expected to file an appeal on time. However, where delay results from circumstances that are bona fide and beyond the assessee’s control, those circumstances can constitute sufficient cause.
It relied on Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the Supreme Court’s emphasis on substantial justice where delay is supported by justifiable reasons.
Considering the facts, the Tribunal condoned the 108-day delay in the first appeal. It then remanded the matter directly to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The substantive additions were neither examined nor finally deleted.
Author’s Comments
The ruling recognises the practical difficulties faced by elderly taxpayers who depend on others to access digital tax communications. Condonation, however, remains dependent on an explanation establishing sufficient cause; age or limited computer knowledge is not an automatic exemption from limitation.
For practitioners, the distinction between the two delays matters. Each concerned a different appellate stage and required its own explanation.
The operative relief also deserves accurate reporting. Although the first appeal’s delay was condoned, the Tribunal sent the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, not merely back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee has secured a hearing opportunity and must now substantiate her position on merits.
Cases Discussed
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji & Others — (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC); (1987) 2 SCC 107; Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987, decided on 19.02.1987. Relied upon: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay where sufficient cause is established, and accordingly condoned the 108-day delay before the CIT(A).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT PATNA
The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2019-20.
2. There is a delay of 125 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that Assessee is an illiterate person and not aware of the computer knowledge. The Appeal order was passed online and escaped his attention. The dismissal of the Appeal came to his knowledge only when his son checked the E-mail containing the notice of demand under various sections of the Act. Immediately thereafter, necessary steps were taken to consult a tax professional and file the Appeal. Thus sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 125 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 31.01.2024 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.01.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 30.01.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.01.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.
4. None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department’s Representative and perused the material available on record.
5. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first Appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches.
6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.01.2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 108 days and the Assessee has contended following reasons to condone the delay:-
“The learned assessing officer issue the show cause notice for different date but no any communication by me due to income tax portal registered Email Id and mobile number Manish Kumar and Email and mobile who was internet café owner taxpayer Smt. Bibi Sahjadi Bano old lady and severe back pain and high sugar blood pressure.”
However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the above Appeal.
7. It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 108 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard before passing the de-novo assessment order.
8. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 08.10.2026.
