What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution is not appropriate as it infringes upon the assessee's right to a fair order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeals before the ITAT were filed with a significant delay due to the assessee being incarcerated. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and also on merits due to lack of rebuttal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and on merits without a proper opportunity to the assessee. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Vandana Rana vs DCIT | ITAT Dehradun 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 263/DDN/2026

ITA No. 255/DDN/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member ITA No. 263/DDN/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Rajeev Kumar Rana, Vs DCIT, 197B, Rajpur Road, Central Circle, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHBPK6089R ITA No. 255/DDN/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vandana Rana, Vs DCIT, 197B, Rajpur Road, Central Circle, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGNPR5165L Assessee by: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, CA Revenue by: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2026 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals by assessee are arising out of the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida in DIN & order Nos. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1078785347(1) & 10787884211(1), order dated 22.07.2025. Assessments were framed by ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun for Assessment Year 2017-18 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 07.12.20219 and 26.12.2019.

2 ITA Nos. 263 & 255/DDN/2026 Rajeev Kumar Rana & Vandana Rana 2. By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 263 & 255/Del/2026 as factual matrix is same and in order to avoid multiplicity of decisions, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 263/Del/2026 is taken as “lead” case.

At the outset, it is noted that the appeals filed by assessee before us are time barred by 224 days (in ITA No. 263/DDN/2026)and 219 days (in ITA No. 255/DDN/2026) as the orders of ld. CIT(A) is dated 22.07.2025 and assessee filed appeals before Tribunal on 07.05.2026 and 12.05.2026, accordingly there is a delay of 224 days in ITA No. 263/DDN/2026 and 219 days in ITA No. 255/DDN/2026. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was undergoing several personal hardships as the assessee was behind bars for 3 and ½ years and after a long legal battle, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted bail only on 10.04.2026 after 3 and ½ years. When the order of ld. CIT(A) was received, assessee was in jail and therefore there was a delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. As the cause is reasonable, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

At the outset, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution of the appeal by relying on B. N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) by holding that assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. But on

3 ITA Nos. 263 & 255/DDN/2026 Rajeev Kumar Rana & Vandana Rana merits as well, the ld. CIT(A) dealt with the issue in just three lines by stating that the AO has duly mentioned the facts of the case and has mentioned the reasons for making the addition. Since, there was no rebuttal from the assessee, therefore, the addition made by AO was found sustainable. When these facts were confronted to the ld. Sr. DR, he could not controvert the above factual situation.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal simpliciter for non- prosecution as it is a vested right of the assessee for a fair order. Hence, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis ITA No. 263/Del/2026, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No. 263/Del/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No.255/Del/2026 for A.Y. 2017-18 also.

4 ITA Nos. 263 & 255/DDN/2026 Rajeev Kumar Rana & Vandana Rana 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Vice President Dated: 28/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

VANDANA RANA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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