MOHD WASEEM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(6), DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3834/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2026AY 2017-183 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 condoned the delay, finding the explanation for the delay to be bona fide. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to violation of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 768 days due to alleged clerical omissions. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order for non-appearance and non-filing of documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Gulati, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3834/Del/2026, A.Y. 2017-18 Mohd Waseem Vs. Income Tax Officer, 993, Street No. 31, Ward 60(6), Jafrabad, New Delhi Delhi 110053 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABFPW7492Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ankur Gulati, CA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

Application for condonation of delay of 768 days in filing appeal and the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against order dated 28.12.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 24.12.2019 of Ld.

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3834/Del/2026 Mohd Waseem

Assessing Officer / Income Tax Officer, Ward 60(5), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that there is a delay of 768 days in filing appeal due to bona fide procedural lapses caused by clerical omissions by the Accountant. The explanation does not smack of malafide as the appellant has not gained anything but by not filing appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 768 days in filing appeal is condoned.

2.1 Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order in violation of principle of natural justice for non- appearance of appellant/assessee, non-filing of documents.

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

4.

From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28.12.2023 dismissed the appeal for non-appearance of appellant/assessee and non-filing of documents.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3834/Del/2026 Mohd Waseem

5.

In view of above material facts, and in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 28.12.2023 of ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.07.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →