What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove her case at her own risk.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed with a significant delay. The CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, affirming the Assessing Officer's additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the assessee, and if the appeal should be restored for a fresh hearing.

Kranti Devi, Ghaziabad vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.4367/Del/2026 Kranti Devi (AY: 2012-13) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4367/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kranti Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer CC-50, Avantika Ward-2(3)(2), C-Block Ghaziabad Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 Uttar Pradesh – 203001 PAN: AJFPD3624F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 20.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065856935(1), dated 20.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.4367/Del/2026 Kranti Devi (AY: 2012-13) 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 598 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex- parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. 4. The Revenue during the course of hearing vehemently argues in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and is of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor and the arguing counsel in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. 6. Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three

P a g e | 3 ITA No.4367/Del/2026 Kranti Devi (AY: 2012-13) effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the cases at her own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August , 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14th September, 2026. Rohit, Sr. PS

KRANTI DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BULANDSHAHR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments