MANOJ DUDEJA,NEW DELHI vs. SCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 483/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed seven appeals with the CIT(A) belatedly by 104-110 days without filing a formal condonation application. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals in limine without issuing a deficiency memo or a hearing notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals for delay without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘C’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri Ashu Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Bharti, CIT-DR
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 24.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’ : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.478-484/Del/2026

Assessment Year : 2015-16 to 2021-22

Mr. Manoj Dudeja v. DCIT,Central Circle-13, D-15/125, Sector-3 E-2, ARA Centre , Rohini Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 PAN : ANWPM2050K. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Ashu Garg, CA Respondent by : Shri Umesh Chandra Bharti, CIT-DR.

Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 24.07.2026

ORDER These seven appeals in ITA No. 478-484/Del/2026 for assessment year(s) 2015-16 to 2021-22 has arisen from separate appellate order(s) all dated 18.11.2025 respectively passed by the learned CIT(A)-26, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2 ITA No.478-484 /Del/2026 Manoj Dudeja Since common issue are involved in all these seven appeals , they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order.

2.

In all these seven appeals , the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal belatedly by the assessee with ld. CIT(A) ranging from 104-110 days , beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee did not file any application/ affidavit(s) seeking condonation of delay along with its aforesaid seven appeals filed with ld. CIT(A), rather the assessee stated in its appeals filed in Form No. 35 with ld. CIT(A) that the application(s) for condonation of delay shall be filed at the time of hearing. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the seven appeals of the assessee u/s 249(3) vide separate orders all dated 18.11.2025 , by not condoning the delay in filing these seven appeals belatedly by the assessee beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act , as the assessee could not explain sufficient cause in filing these seven appeals belatedly with ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the seven appeals in limine by treating these appeals as un-admitted.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed second appeal with the Tribunal. Heard both the rival parties. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the seven appeals in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly beyond time stipulated u/s 249(2) on the grounds that application for condonation of delay is not filed by the assessee along with its appeal filed in Form No. 35, and treating the same as unadmitted. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity be provided to the assessee. The ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of ld. CIT(A).

3 ITA No.478-484 /Del/2026 Manoj Dudeja 4. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is observed that the assessee filed aforesaid seven appeals with ld. CIT(A) belatedly by 104-110 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee did not file any application /affidavit for condonation of delay with ld. CIT(A), but , however, in Form No. 35 filed by the assessee with ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that application for condonation shall be filed at the time of hearing. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the seven appeals in limine un-admitted vide separate orders all dated 18.07.2025, as the assessee has not filed any application/affidavit for condonation of delay , and as such the assessee could not demonstrate sufficient cause in filing these seven appeals belatedly with ld. CIT(A) beyond time stipulated u/s 249(2) . It appears from record that no deficiency memo was issued to the assessee by ld. CIT(A) affording an opportunity to the assessee to remove aforesaid defect nor any notice of hearing was issued by ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, and all the seven appeals stood dismissed by ld. CIT(A) un-admitted owing to aforesaid delay in filing these seven appeals belatedly beyond time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act. Principles of natural justice and fair hearing are ingrained in all the action of the statutory authorities. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI , reported in 1978 AIR 597(SC). Principles of natural justice and fair hearings are clearly breached in the instant case , and prejudice is caused to the assessee , as the assessee was non-suited and condemned by ld. CIT(A) without any opportunity being afforded to the assessee by ld. CIT(A), by way of dismissal of all its seven appeals by ld. CIT(A). Thus, we set aside the orders passed by ld. CIT(A) , and restore the assessee’s appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee is directed to file before ld. CIT(A) , the necessary condonation applications supported by affidavit(s) and evidences explaining the reasons for delay. The

4 ITA No.478-484 /Del/2026 Manoj Dudeja ld. CIT(A) shall firstly decide the condonation application(s) filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(A), before proceeding to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) shall give proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties. In case , the assessee donot co-operate with ld. CIT(A), then the ld. CIT(A) shall be free to decide. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issue in these appeals , as well on the merits of delay in filing of these appeals by the assessee belatedly with ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(A) shall decide uninfluenced by any of our observations in this order. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner as indicated above. We order accordingly.

5.

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee in ITA no. 478- 484/Del/2026 for assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22 , are allowed for statistical purposes in the manner as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 24th July, 2026

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →