DHARAMVIR,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD -1 (1) (3), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5036/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2026AY 2019-203 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee claimed no notice was served, while the department stated multiple notices were issued. The appeal to the ITAT was filed 34 days late.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice, and whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but pertains to appeal procedures and ex-parte orders.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 34 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by documentary evidences explaining reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in application which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 34 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits

3.

Shri V. Raj Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) in ex- parte proceedings has confirmed the addition of Rs.41,76,940/- on account of alleged Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of immovable property. The ld. Counsel submits that no

ITA 5036/DEL/2026 DHARAMVIR notice issued by the CIT(A) was ever served on the assessee. He thus prayed for restoring the appeal back to the CIT(A).

4.

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the department prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. He contended that the CIT(A) had issued five notices to the assessee, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices.

5.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceeding has dismissed appeal of assessee. Considering entire facts and in the interest of justice, the appeal is restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

6.

The assessee shall updated his current email address on the official portal of the Department within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CIT(A) shall issue notice to the assessee on the email address updated by the assessee on the portal of the Department. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 06th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 24-Jul-2026

ITA 5036/DEL/2026 DHARAMVIR Copy to: DHARAMVIR, GHAT PANCHI KHURD PANCHLI, 1 MEERUT-250002, UTTAR PRADESH ITO WARD -1 (1) (3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHAINSALI 2 GROULD, MEERUT-, UTTAR PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →