SMT. MANJU ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44 (5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1828/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's financial and personal difficulties leading to lack of proper representation, felt that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves a chance to prove her case. The impugned order was set aside, the delay condoned, and the matter remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex parte order adding substantial amounts under Sections 69A and 69 of the Act due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a significant delay, which the CIT(A) found lacked sufficient reason.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without considering the assessee's explanation, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present her case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: SHRI Krishan Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026

ITA No.1828/DEL/2026 SMT. MANJU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1828/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SMT. MANJU, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, B-62, 2nd Floor, Sector-8, Dwarka, Ward 44(5), New Delhi, Delhi 110075. New Delhi, Delhi 110001. PAN No. ARHPM8394F Appellant Respondent Assessee by SHRI Krishan Kumar, CA Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 14.07.2026 Pronouncement on 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 12.01.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have passed an ex parte order and added Rs.266,80,436/- u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.90,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. These additions have been made in an ex parte manner since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Office of ld. AO (page 3 of the Ld. AO’s order).

1.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 853 days in filing of the appeal which was claimed to be on account of the COVID Pandemic and certain personal and financial issues being faced by the assessee at that 1

ITA No.1828/DEL/2026 SMT. MANJU point of time. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the explanation filed and has dismissed the appeal inlimine on the ground that there was an absence of good and sufficient reason for condoning the delay.

1.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which are not strictly as per ITAT norms but suffice it to say that it has been stated that due to financial and personal difficulties the assessee was not able to present the facts before the authorities below and there is a prayer for allowing the same.

2.

On the last date of hearing, the Ld. AR briefly took us through the orders of authorities below and stated that the assessee has suffered due to lack of proper representation before the authorities below and has also suffered on account of inadequate tax advice. The Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to appear before the Ld. AO so that the correct income of the assessee can be determined.

2.1 The Ld. DR stated that the Ld. AO has passed a detailed order on the facts available before him and the same was deserving to be supported.

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that this is a facts based case and due to the non-attendance before the authorities below there is a

ITA No.1828/DEL/2026 SMT. MANJU one-sided determination of taxable income. We feel that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves a chance to prove her case before the authorities below. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing of the first appeal. We thereby remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the assessee would do well to respond to notices which would be issue by the Ld. AO for hearing in the case.

4.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →