MAMTA SOLANKI,POOTH KALAN, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO), WARD-36(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1841/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 132 days. The delay was attributed to notices being sent to an incorrect email address, which belonged to a former tax consultant. The assessee only became aware of the assessment order through the e-filing portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 249(3)

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: Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026

ITA No.1841/DEL/2026 MAMTA SOLANKI 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.1841/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 MAMTA SOLANKI, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO), 28, Village Pooth Kalan, Ward 36(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi, Delhi 110041. New Delhi, PAN No. AXLPS8509C Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. 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 23.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, there was a delay of 132 days in the filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which was not condoned. Even before the Ld. AO the assessee has suffered an ex parte order on the ground that the assessee did not avail of the opportunities provided by the Ld. AO (pages 2 & 3 of the Ld. AO’s order). It is seen that the assessee had mentioned in column 15 of Form 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) that there was a delay of 132 days which was on account of the notices being sent on an e-mail address of the assessee which was not being used by her. The Ld.

ITA No.1841/DEL/2026 MAMTA SOLANKI CIT(A) has not found this to be a good enough reason for exercising his discretion within Section 249(3) of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed inlimine.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds which challenge this action of the Ld. CIT(A) and also challenge the addition on merits.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR placed an affidavit on record from the assessee through which the reasons for delay before the Ld. CIT(A) have been indicated. It has been stated in the affidavit that the notices were sent to an e-mail address which belonged to an erstwhile tax consultant. Thereafter, the assessee came to know about the assessment order only when a representative of the assessee checked the e-filing portal. Thereafter, the assessee duly filed the first appeal. The Ld. AR also stated that these very same reasons were duly mentioned in the relevant space provided for the same in Form 35. It was the submission that the Bench could consider remanding this matter back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment so that the assessee has a chance to present the facts denovo.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. Considering the totality of facts and

ITA No.1841/DEL/2026 MAMTA SOLANKI circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would avail of such opportunities.

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 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →