Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals filed by Ganpati Developers were time-barred by five days. The assessee explained the delay was due to a communication gap with their tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the short period.
Held
The Tribunal held that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserved another chance to present the facts before the authorities below. Therefore, the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities, leading to ex parte orders.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of three appeals pertaining to the same Assessee. All the three appeals are time barred by five days. The assesse has filed identically worded affidavits for all the three years, requesting for condoning the said delay on the ground that the assesse could not engaged a suitable Counsel in time to file the appeal within the statutory period.
1.1 The contents of the affidavit have been perused and considering the shortness of delay and the reasons advanced before us, we hereby condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication.
ITA No.71/DDN/2026 pertaining to AY 2013-14 arises from order dated 06.11.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). All the remaining two appeals for AY 2022-23 & 2023-24 have also been passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida, vide orders all dated 06.11.2025.
2.1 All the three appeals have been passed in an ex parte manner by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that there was no compliance to as many as 2
ITA Nos. 71, 72 & 73/DDN/2026 GANPATI DEVELOPERS, SAHARANPUR
nine notices issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A), fixing the dates for hearing [ITA 72 for AY 2022-23]. A similar situation prevailed for the remaining two cases. It is also seen that except for the case pertaining to AY 2022-23 the remaining cases were disposed of in an ex parte manner even by the Ld. AO.
2.2 The aggrieved assesse has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned orders and also averring that there was denial of opportunity. The Ld. AR pointed out that there was a communication gap between the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee and the assessee himself. Thereafter, unintentionally there was a lack of proper persuasion before the authorities below. The Ld. AR requested for one more opportunity to present the facts before the authorities below.
3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the arguments of Ld. AR/DR and have considered the documents before us. In the interest of substantive justice, it is felt that the assesse deserves another chance to present the facts. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders in all the three cases and remand the same back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. We expect the assessee to be vigilant about the proceedings and we also expect the Ld. AO to give ample opportunity of being heard.
ITA Nos. 71, 72 & 73/DDN/2026 GANPATI DEVELOPERS, SAHARANPUR
In the result, the appeals allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.04.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI