RAMINDER SINGH,PUNJAB vs. ITO. WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1659/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 August 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided were bonafide. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) filed a report accepting the assessee's claim, which was based on the Tribunal's earlier directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine for being filed beyond the limitation period. The assessee had a delay of 1177 days, which was attributed to bonafide reasons. This was the second round of litigation for the assessee to give effect to a previous Tribunal order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay without considering bonafide reasons, and whether the AO correctly gave effect to the Tribunal's previous order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI VIJAY VARMA

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 27.10.2025 for assessment year 2015-16.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

ITA 1659/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 2 “1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), Chandigarh in Appeal No.NFAC/2014-15/10458321 has erred in passing order dtd. 27.10.2025 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by erroneously holding that the appeal has been filed beyond limitation period. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld.AO of computing the addition at Rs. 18,77,785/- while giving effect to the order of the Hon Tale ITAT when such quantification was incorrect, was made by a totally non-speaking order, without affording opportunity of hearing and even the request of appellant to rectify this u/s 154 was never dealt with by the Ld. AO. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR had submitted that there was a delay of 1177 days in filing the appeal before ld.CIT (Appeals) and the ld.CIT (Appeals) did not consider the reasons/explanations given by the assessee for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On consideration of the reasons given by the assessee for delay of 1177 days, we are convinced that the delay occurred due to bonafide reasons and deserves to be condoned. The ld. DR has not seriously opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT (Appeals) is condoned.

4.

The facts of the case are that the present case is having a chequered history as this is the second round whereby the

ITA 1659/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 3 assessee has sought to give effect to the direction given by the Tribunal. Infact, the Tribunal, in the present case vide order dated 18.01.2021 at page 26 of the Paper Book has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the assessee had requested the ld. AO to give effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, however, for the reason best known to the AO, the assessee has not get the relief as directed by the Tribunal and the AO has passed an order u/s 154 read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act partly allowing the ground of appeal despite the direction of the Tribunal against which, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals), however, the ld.CIT (Appeals) had also failed to grant the relief to the assessee.

5.

On the last date of hearing, the Tribunal had directed the AO to file the report as to why the order of the Tribunal has not been given effect and in case the AO failed to give effect to the order of the Tribunal, the AO was directed to be present in person. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the AO has filed the report dated 21.07.2026 before this Tribunal.

6.

The ld. AR for the assessee has perused the report and submitted that the grievance of the assessee has since been

ITA 1659/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 4 accepted and resolved by the AO, therefore, the present appeal is required to be dismissed as satisfied.

7.

Per contra, the ld. DR has relied upon the report given by the AO dated 21.07.2026.

8.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the report dated 21.07.2026, it was mentioned by the ld. AO as under :

ITA 1659/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 5 9. From the perusal of the above, it is abundantly clear that the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee which was based on the direction of this Tribunal. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is required to be allowed in terms of the compliance report by the AO. Accordingly, the report of the AO is accepted and the AO is directed to give effect to the report filed before us. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 06th August,2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(VIJAY VARMA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam”

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 5.

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →