RAMAN KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(2), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2020/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily based on non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, despite the issue being non-filing of the return. As the notice from CIT(A) was allegedly not received, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving adequate notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the CIT(A) dated 19.09.2024. The assessee sought condonation of delay due to his father's ill health, supported by an affidavit and medical records. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal merits admission for condonation of delay, and whether the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of procedural conditions without deciding on merits is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms Arzoo Rai, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Raman Kumar, Vs ITO, C9/175, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-62(2), New Delhi - 110 053. Delhi PAN: AIKPK1659F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Arzoo Rai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi.

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR has pointed out that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which an application has been filed for condonation of the delay. Considering that the assessee is an individual and has sought condonation of delay on the basis of the ill health of his father which is supported by affidavit and medical record, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

More judgments on Section 249(4)(b)

All 347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →