MEGHRAJ GUPTA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2656/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 September 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 529 days, finding it to be due to reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case and for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 529 days. The delay was attributed to the Chartered Accountant losing track of the appellate order due to office shifting. The assessee claimed to have become aware of the order only recently.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to reasonable cause. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Ashu Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 03.09.2026Pronounced: 03.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 2656/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Meghraj Gupta, ITO, 18, Panipat H.O., Ward 1, Haryana, Panipat-132103. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Panipat Haryana, Rohtak-132103. PAN- AFMPG4612F Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ashu Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Robin Rawal, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 03.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.09.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.07.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the order dated 30.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14.

ITA No.-2656/Del/2026 Meghraj Gupta 2. At the outset, it is noted that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 529 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay 13.03.2026 along with an affidavit wherein it has been explained that the assessee remained unaware of the passing of appellate order as the matter was being handled by his Chartered Accountant, who had lost track of the same due to shifting in his office and hence did not inform the assessee in time. As soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the assessee on 3.03.2026, immediate steps were undertaken to file the present appeal without any further delay. Ld. AR has requested for condonation of delay which was purely unintentional and due to bonafide reasons.

2.1 After hearing both the parties, we hereby condone the delay of 529 days as the same is found to be due to reasonable cause.

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the order dated 11.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed exparte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee and adjudicate the matter afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the CIT(A) without fail.

ITA No.-2656/Del/2026 Meghraj Gupta 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [VIMAL KUMAR] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 10.09.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →