SEHDEV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 60(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4127/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 August 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide mistake by the professional. In the interest of justice, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding non-filing of return. The AO passed an ex-parte order making additions. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 115-day delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the condonation of delay application, and if the matter should be restored to the AO for a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 17.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4127/Del/2026, A.Y. 2020-21 Sehdev Vs. Deputy Commissioner of C/o Fire Ram 45-46n Gharol I, Income Tax, Village Gujjar Circle 60(1), Basti Gharoli New Delhi Delhi 110096 Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AADCR9256R Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Sh. Ankit Manchanda, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 18.02.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4127/Del/2026 Sehdev (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of for assessment order dated 27.01.2025 of ld. Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for assessment year 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee information was received at insight portal Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through Insight Portal software under the head of ‘RMS-Non filing of return module of Insight Portal. The assessee was provided with an opportunity of being heard by Ld. AO as per Section 148A(b) of the Act in which the assessee remained non- responsive. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 08.03.2024 intimation letter dated 26.06.2024, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.08.2024, reminder letter dated 30.09.2024, show cause notice u/s 144 of the act dated 09.10.2024, regular show cause notice dated 19.11.2024 were issued but the assessee did not reply. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 27.01.2024 made additions of Rs. 4,72,80,400/-.

3.

Against order dated 27.01.2025 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing appeal and the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2026.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4127/Del/2026 Sehdev 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing appeal due to bona fide mistake by professional Chartered Accountant who was interested with filing appeal. Ld. AO had passed ex parte order without effective hearing to the assessee. So, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.

6.

Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection.

7.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 18.02.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing appeal and appeal. The appellant/assessee had pleaded bona fide mistake by professional chartered accountant who was interested with filing appeal. The explanation does not smack of mala fides as appellant had not gained anything by not filing appeal within the period of limitation. Ld. AO had passed ex parte order dated 27.01.2025. The appellant/assessee has requested for restoration of matter to the AO which is not opposed. In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A) and dated 27.01.2025 of ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 4127/Del/2026 Sehdev 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.08.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →