SAROJ KHATRI,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(3), CIVIC CENTRE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that she was residing abroad and was unaware of the assessment proceedings until she was informed by her nephew. The Tribunal found that if the date of issue of the demand notice (30.11.2019) was taken as the date of service, then the delay was justifiable. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Saroj Khatri, filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.12.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13, which arose from an assessment order passed under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dismissal was due to a delay of two and a half months in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not declared the delay in Form 35 and had provided a different service date for the demand notice. The assessee claimed the assessment order was served on 24.02.2020, while the demand notice date was 30.11.2019. The assessee further submitted that she was residing in New Zealand and was unaware of the proceedings until her nephew was notified of a penalty.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 is liable to be condoned, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the assessment order, turning on the interpretation of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and principles of natural justice. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that she was residing abroad and was unaware of the assessment proceedings. She only came to know about them when her nephew received a penalty notice, prompting her to obtain the assessment order and file the appeal. She claimed the appeal was filed on time based on the date of service of the demand notice as 24.02.2020. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order noted that the assessee did not state the appeal was filed delayed in Form 35 and had provided a different service date for the demand notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 18.12.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-17/10986/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 30.11.2019 passed u/s 147/144 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.
From the perusal of the order of Ld.CIT(A), it is seen that the appeal was filed delayed by two and half months before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal without dwelling upon the issue on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that Column No.14 of Form 35, the appellant has not stated that the appeal is filed delayed. However, the date of service of demand notice of the impugned order was 30.11.2019 whereas the assessee stated the same as 24.02.2020 and since the appeal is filed on 14.03.2020, it was claimed by the assessee that the appeal was filed on time.
In this case, the order of assessment was passed by ITO, Ward-49(3), Delhi dated 30.11.2019 and the certified copy of the order was obtained on 24.02.2020 which is evident from the perusal of the demand notice as well as the assessment order. Thus, the claim of the assessee that the order was served on 24.02.2020 could be correct. However, in the written submissions before us, it is claimed by the assessee that the assessee has never received the copies of the notices issued and re-assessment order as she left the premises where the notices were sent and was residing with her son in New Zealand. It is only when the assessee’s nephew got notice of the penalty from the AO, the assessee had came to know about any such proceedings and therefore, contacted the AO and obtained the certified copy of order and filed the appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. After considering the submissions of the assessee, we find sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), if date of issue of demand notice i.e. 30.11.2019 is taken as date of service, accordingly, we condone the delay. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. With these directions, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026