LAIQ AHMED KHAN,SAMBHAL vs. LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), SAMBHAL, SAMBHAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3414/ DEL/2026 [A.Y. 2020-21] Laiq Ahmed Khan Vs. Ld. ITO 273, Kotla Sarai Train, Ward – 1(5), Sambhal, UP – 244 303 Sambhal PAN: AQQPK 6025 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Department By : Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.01.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) arising from the assessment order dated 25.11.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by the NFAC, for the A.Y. 2020-21.

ITA No.3414/DEL/2026 Laiq Ahmed Khan vs. ITO [A.Y 2020-21] 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 217 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the application filed for condonation of delay and passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s application for condonation of delay of 217 days and passed an ex-parte order. The ld. CIT(A), did not appreciate explanation submitted by the assessee and no merits were dealt with while passing the appellate order as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 5. In such factual matrix, we are of the view that the reasons stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee regarding a purported dispute with the previous authorized representative and alleged difficulty in retrieving records, coupled with the engagement of a new tax consultant, seems to be reasonable and sufficient cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A), in the light of the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987), reported in 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 107. Further, in view of the above facts and

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.3414/DEL/2026 Laiq Ahmed Khan vs. ITO [A.Y 2020-21] circumstances and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we are of the considered opinion that the issues be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective and adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities.

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 13.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi

Page 3 of 4