TIRATH RAM,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-68(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4218/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's justification for the delay and agreed that the matter deserved to be re-adjudicated. The order of the lower authorities was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to a delay in filing, which was attributed to an accident involving the assessee's professional. The Assessing Officer had also passed an ex-parte order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to delay, caused by unavoidable circumstances, violated the assessee's right to natural justice and if the matter should be remanded for de novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sr. DR
Pronounced: 10.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

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 19.02.2026, arising out of assessment order passed under section u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 02.02.2024, of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA 4218/DEL/2026 TIRATH RAM

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its case ex-parte and thus its right to natural justice of being heard has been violated. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay caused in filing of appeal before him, which was attributable to unfortunate accident of the professional. It was submitted that the ld. AO has also passed an ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by compelling person reason were making requisite compliance to the statutory notices of lower authorities. It was submitted that the impugned conduct of the assessee was neither intentional nor mala fide. It was accordingly requested that the matter be kindly considered for remission back to the ld. AO for adjudication de novo. The ld. Counsel personally ensured that full compliance shall now been made. 3. The ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not seriously oppose the move. 4. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The lapse of the assessee in not complying appeal filing deadline before the ld. First Appellate Authority are evident from the assailed appellate order dated 19.02.2026. We are however in agreement with the justification tendered for the impugned default. We are conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter

Page 2 of 3

ITA 4218/DEL/2026 TIRATH RAM

back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes 5. 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:11.08.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →