MANISH SAKHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5054/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 Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits as per Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices. The assessee contended that their advocate could not attend due to ill health and requested the matter be restored.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and if the assessee's delay in responding to notices warrants restoration of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251

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 19.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing 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 petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 93 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

3.

Shri Suraj Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) in ex parte proceedings has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. He submitted that Shri Rakesh Bobal, Advocate to whom the assessee had assigned his case could

ITA 5054/DEL/2026 MANISH SAKHUJA not respond to the notice, issued by the CIT(A) due to ill health. The said Counsel could not even communicate to the assessee regarding proceedings before the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and would be able to substantiate that the addition made by Assessing Officer (AO) is not sustainable. He thus prayed for restoring the matter before the CIT(A).

4.

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the department defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

5.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. A perusal of the impugned order shows that four notices were issued to the assessee by the CIT(A). Except first notice issued on 08.04.2025, the assessee did not respond to subsequent three notices. In response to the first notice request for adjournment was received from assessee’s side. The CIT(A) in absence of any submissions from the assessee dismissed appeal for non-prosecution. It is no more res-integra that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. The provisions of section 250 r.w.s 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) mandates the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

Considering entire facts of the case and in the interest of justice, the appeal is restored to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

6.

The assessee may update 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(s) to the assessee on the email address provided in Form No. 35 as well as on email address available on portal of the Department. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.

7.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and 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 5054/DEL/2026 MANISH SAKHUJA NV/-

Copy to: MANISH SAKHUJA, 1 C-176, MADHUVAN NEW DELHI-110092 2 ITO WARD 59(3), NEW DELHI-, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →