What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine. Therefore, the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of 119 days. The delay occurred because the order was served to an incorrect email address belonging to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to a genuine reason. The primary issue is the validity of the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without properly serving the notice.

Ram Jagar vs ITO | s.250, 143(3) | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Hearing: 16/07/2026Pronounced: 27/07/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2180/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Ram Jagar Vs. ITO B-32A, Priyanka Tower, Ward 45(1), Civic Centre, Basai Darapur Road, West Minto Road, New Delhi Delhi, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AHAPR7862G Assessee by : Sh. Vishal Gupta, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/07/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the

order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] under Section 250 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the

Assessment Order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Assessment Unit,

Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for shot) for

Assessment Year 2017-18.

The appeal is found to be time barred of 119 days in support of

which application for condonation of delay has been filed. In fact the

2 ITA No. 2180/Del/2026 Ram Jagar Vs. ITO

order was served by the Assessee to the email not belongs to the

Assessee. However, such delay was not condoned and hence the order

impugned passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before us.

Having regard to the explanation rendered by the Assessee which

seems to be genuine, the Appeal preferred by the Assessee before the

Ld. CIT(A) being ex-parte one, the issue is set aside to the Ld. CIT(A)

for consideration to the same afresh.

The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to provide an opportunity of

being heard to the assessee while considering the case made out by

the assessee and to finalize the issue by passing a reasoned order

upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which

the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/07/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

3 ITA No. 2180/Del/2026 Ram Jagar Vs. ITO

RAM JAGAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45(1), DELHI

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