What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file new evidence. The CIT(A) was also permitted to call for a remand report from the AO.

The assessee failed to comply with multiple notices issued by the CIT(A) despite the matter being remanded by the ITAT for fresh adjudication. The assessee, a senior citizen, claimed lack of alertness and familiarity with computerized taxation as reasons for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's non-compliance with notices warrants dismissal, or if substantive justice requires another opportunity for adjudication.

Prakash Chand, Noida vs Assessment Unit | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CA

For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 06.07.2026

ITA No.804/DEL/2026 PRAKASH CHAND, NOIDA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.804/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2007-08 PRAKASH CHAND, Vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, L-6, Sector-12, Noida, Circle 46(1), New Delhi, Gautam Buddha Nagar 201301, Delhi 110002. Uttar Pradesh 201301. PAN No.AAEPG6234E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CA Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 06.07.2026 Pronouncement on 07.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 29.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, it is seen that these are second round proceedings since in the first round the ITAT had remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication [ITA 2764/Del/2011, order dated 21.11.2017]. Through the order of ITAT it was directed that the details available and filed by the assessee needed to be examined by the Ld. CIT(A) so that the evidence available with the assessee could be appraised fairly.

ITA No.804/DEL/2026 PRAKASH CHAND, NOIDA 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) undertook the adjudication in response to the order of ITAT (supra) and there is evidence to show that as many as twenty opportunities were given to the assessee (pages 6 to 8 of the impugned order), but the assessee did not comply to any of these notices issued by the office of Ld.CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee could not succeed at the level of Ld. CIT(A).

1.3 The aggrieved assessee has further approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the action of Ld. AO and thereafter challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order of Ld. AO.

Before us the Ld. AR stated that the assessee was a senior citizen who was not carrying on any business for the past several years and therefore was not particularly alert to proceedings being conducted by the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee was also not conversant with the computerized environment of taxation and therefore he could not make any compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR made a statement at the Bar that the assessee under takes to comply fully before the Ld. CIT(A) or the AO in case one more chance was given. It was the submission that even before the Ld. AO sufficient evidence could not be filed and it is only now that the assessee is in a position to do so.

ITA No.804/DEL/2026 PRAKASH CHAND, NOIDA 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that the impugned order deserves to be upheld since the assessee has not given any cogent reason for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We would agree in principle with the Ld. DR that the assessee’s actions are not worthy of support since the Ld.CIT(A) gave many more opportunities than was required of him. Also, once the ITAT has remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A), it was the duty of the assessee to be alert to the proceedings against him. However, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to once again set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be at liberty to file any new evidence that would be available with him and the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to call for a remand report from the Ld. AO. Needless to say, in case the assessee is non-compliant again, then the Ld. CIT(A) would be free to take an adverse view in the matter.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026

ITA No.804/DEL/2026 PRAKASH CHAND, NOIDA *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

PRAKASH CHAND,NOIDA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX

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