LAJPAT RAI ANEJA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-51(4), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as there was a reasonable cause. The assessment order was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication, and the penalty order was deleted as it stemmed from the set-aside assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed as delayed. The assessee contended that the orders were not served, and appeals were filed promptly after receiving certified copies. The assessment order was passed ex-parte due to proceedings on a duplicate PAN.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and whether the penalty order was sustainable when the underlying assessment order was set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2770/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) ITA No.2771/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) Lajpat Rai Aneja, Income Tax Officer, C/o D.K. Taneja and Ward-51(4), Associates, D-164, Vs. New Delhi. First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. PAN-AABTPO334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Assessee by Department by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A), in short] both dated 20.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act dt. 10.12.2018 and penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 18.06.2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. It is observed that both the appeals being filed delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore the same were dismissed as not maintainable.
2 ITA Nos.2770 & 2771/Del/2026
Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submits that both the orders were not served upon the assessee, and therefore, in terms of the application filed on 17.09.2019, a request was made for supply of the certified copies of the order which was supplied to the assessee on 18.09.2019. Upon receipt of the certified copies of the orders, assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 dated 10.12.2018 and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 18.06.2019 on 02.10.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submissions of the assessee that since appeals were filed well within stipulated time period upon receipt of the certified copies of orders and therefore, there was no delay which fact has not been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeals of the assessee by holding that the appeals were filed delayed. Therefore, it is requested that delay be condoned and since the assessment order of the AO is also passed ex-parte, therefore in the interest of justice, matter can be set aside to the file of the AO.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently objected to the request of the assessee and submits that since the assessee has filed to give any reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals, therefore, delay should not be condoned and both the appeals be dismissed.
Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessment order u/s 144/147 was passed on 10.12.2019, however, the said order was not received by the assessee as the assessment proceedings were concluded on duplicate PAN No. ABMPR5498L whereas the assessee was regular filing the return of income on other PAN i.e. AEFPA93397B, therefore, a request was made on 17.09.219 to supply the certified copies of the orders. After receiving the
3 ITA Nos.2770 & 2771/Del/2026
copies on 18.09.2019, appeal was filed on 02.10.2019 against the order passed u/s 144/147 and on 06.10.2019 against the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) on 18.06.2019. On careful consideration of the facts, in our opinion, there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further observed that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act as no compliance was made by the assessee before the AO. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. AO with direction to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee of being heard. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No.2770/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.
With respect to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.2771/Del/2026 against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since, we have already set aside the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act wherein the present penalty proceedings were initiated, therefore, the penalty order is hereby deleted. However, the AO is at liberty to reinitiate the penalty proceedings, if the circumstances suggest so in set aside proceedings. With these observations, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the final result, ITA 2770/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 2771/Del/2026 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.07.2026. Sd/- Sd-/- - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14.07.2026. *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant
4 ITA Nos.2770 & 2771/Del/2026
Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026