GEETA,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 1, KARNAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order due to non-prosecution, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed three appeals, including a quantum appeal and two penalty appeals, against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. There was a delay in filing these appeals, which was condoned by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order and subsequent dismissal by CIT(A) due to non-prosecution warrant a fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 147,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos. 2205, 2206 & 2207/Del/2026 AY – 2019-20
GEETA, Vs ITO, WARD-1, GALI NO. 6, VIKAS NAGAR, KARNAL POOSGARH, KARNAL, HARYANA HARYANA-132001 [PAN: AWTPG9653Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR.
Date of hearing: 20/7/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20/7/2026
ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
These are three appeals filed by the assessee, the first one is quantum appeal and another two appeals are penalty appeals u/s. 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) which have been preferred against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(CIT(A)”] relevant to assessment year 2019-20.
At the threshold, there is a delay of 27 days in all the three appeals. After perusing the records and hearing the Ld. DR, we find reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeals before the Tribunal, hence, we condone the delay in dispute and admitted the appeals. 3. We first deal with the quantum appeal being ITA No. 2205/Del/2026 and noted that AO has passed the exparte assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We further note that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution by affirming the action of the AO. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act on account of non-prosecution and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of non-prosecution by affirming the action of the AO. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. Accordingly, the quantum appeal being ITA No. 2205/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. 5. As regards penalty appeals being ITA No. 2206 & 2207/Del/2026 are concerned, since we have already remitted back the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in quantum appeal no. 2205/Del/2026, as aforesaid, thus, the issues involved in both the remaining penalty appeals are also required to be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, on the similar lines, as aforesaid. We hold and direct accordingly. Accordingly, the ITA No. 2206 & 2207/Del/2026 are also allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-7-2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *SR BHATNAGGAR*
Date:- 22.7.2026
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026