NAVEEN KUMAR,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4219/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2026AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the CIT(A) passed an order without adequate opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to a delay of approximately 15 months. The assessee cited the Covid-19 pandemic as the reason for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without condoning the delay and without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 18.02.2026, arising out of assessment order passed under section u/s 271(1)(C), dated 31.12.2021, of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The appellant assessee was called absent 3. The ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities, took us through the factual matrix of the case. We have noted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has

ITA 4219/DEL/2026 NAVEEN KUMAR passed an ex-parte order. We have also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal in limine without condoning the delay of about 15 months in filing of appeal before him. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had tried to justify the reason of delay as being attributable to contemporary Covid 2019 pandemic. It was argued that the CIT(A) has not given any decision on the merits of the case. 4. We have noted that the rights of natural justice of the assessee have been violated in as much as the impugned order 250 dated 18.02.2026 has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. The fact of ex-parte order of CIT(A) is evident from the conclusion drawn by him in his order to reject assessee’s application on premise of non-submission of required documents. We are conscious that no litigant gains by non-prosecution of its case. In the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo, in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall be bounden to comply with all the statutory notices and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:19.08.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →