What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with an expectation that the assessee would present facts and be given a hearing.

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals in limine without condoning the delay, citing the assessee's laxity in attending to notices and belated filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay, and if the matters should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250, Section 272A(1)(b)

Rajvir Singh, Meerut vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CA

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, CIT DR

Hearing: 17.08.2026

ITA Nos. 2838 & 2839/DEL/2026 RAJVIR SINGH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2838/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 RAJVIR SINGH, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C-11, Gayatri Estate, NH-58, Income Tax Office, Ward 1(2)(3), Partapur, Meerut, Aayakar Bhawan, Uttar Pradesh 250103. Bhainsali Ground, Meerut, PAN No. AFHPS1513A Uttar Pradesh 250002. Appellant Respondent & ITA No.2839/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 RAJVIR SINGH, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C-11, Gayatri Estate, NH-58, Income Tax Office, Ward 1(2)(3), Partapur, Meerut, Aayakar Bhawan, Uttar Pradesh 250103. Bhainsali Ground, Meerut, PAN No. AFHPS1513A Uttar Pradesh 250002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Rohit Agarwal, CA Revenue by Shri Robin Rawal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 17.08.2026 Pronouncement on 17.08.2026 O R D E R PER BENCH:

In ITA No.2838 pertaining to AY 2018-19, there is a delay of 159 days in the filing of the said appeal. The assessee has requested for condoning the same through an affidavit with the following reasons: -

ITA Nos. 2838 & 2839/DEL/2026 RAJVIR SINGH

“Re.: Request for Condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Your Honor, I am a retired personal from PWD department of UP Government and is aged about 67 years. I am not well versed with the e-mail communication. The order under appeal was passed on 01.08.2025 and must have been served upon my e-mail on that date itself. However, I could not take note of the said e-mail communication and did not notice the order. The said order came to my knowledge when my income tax counsel logged onto the income tax portal for checking the status of my appeal. Hence, there is a delay of 139 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the above, I request your honor to kindly condone the delay of 139 days in filing this appeal and admit the same in the interest of the justice, thereby allowing me an opportunity to present my case before your honors on merits.” 1.1 Considering the reasons in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

ITA No.2838 arises from order dated 20.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. ITA No.2839 arises from order dated 01.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act, by NFAC.

2.1 While ITA No.2838 is the quantum matter, ITA No.2839 is a penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(b) of the Act.

The Ld. AR brought to our notice the fact that both the appeals have been dismissed on grounds of the fact that there were delayed appeals filed before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: -

i) ITA No.2838 was filed with a delay of 655 days;

ITA Nos. 2838 & 2839/DEL/2026 RAJVIR SINGH ii) ITA No.2839 was filed with a delay of 480 days.

In both the impugned orders the delay has not been condoned and the appeals have been dismissed inlimine.

The Ld. AR drew our attention to letter dated 14.07.2025 which was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal indicating the reasons for delay as being due to medical reasons, for which medical leave was taken for almost one and a half year. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is a salaried employee of the Provincial Division Public Works Department (PWD). It was the prayer that the delay was on account of justified reasons and the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the same and not dismissed the appeal inlimine. The Ld. AR also mentioned that even before the Ld. AO the assessee had not been able to make any presentation of facts. The Ld. AR again requested that the matters could be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration.

4.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has been lax in terms of attending to the notices issued by the Ld. AO and has also belatedly filed the first appeals in both the matters, however, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside both the impugned orders and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh 3

ITA Nos. 2838 & 2839/DEL/2026 RAJVIR SINGH assessment. Needless to say, we condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). We also expect that the assessee would duly present the facts before the Ld. AO, who would give an opportunity of hearing.

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.09.2026 *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

RAJVIR SINGH,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(3), MEERUT

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