ANIL AND COMPANY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1),HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DB: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 207/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Anil and Company, ITO, R/o 634, Bahadarpur JATT, Ward 1(3)(1), Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249404. Vs Industrial Area, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-224110. PAN- AAXFA6494K Assessee Revenue

Assessee by Shri Rajiv Sahini, CA Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR (VC) Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

ITA No.- 207/DDN/2026 Anil and Company .

1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 14.10.2025, passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO has passed an ex parte order, after several notices issued from 2

ITA No.- 207/DDN/2026 Anil and Company . his office were not complied with. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was filed with a delay of 840 days, which was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that good and sufficient reasons were not presented by the assessee for taking any decision within the framework of section 249(3) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee has approached the ITAT, with grounds challenging the action of the authorities below. 3. Before us, the AR relied on a paper book and written submissions filed on merits of the case. It was also mentioned that the assessee was not properly advised by his tax consultant and hence there was no compliance whatsoever at lower levels. It was also the submission that the assessee has a good case on merits, which if allowed to be dealt with by the Ld. AO, then the correct income of the assessee could be determined easily. 3.1 The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. In adjudicating matters pertaining to condoning of delays, we are conscious of the fact that appellate forums should normally condone delays for allowing the hearing to proceed on merits. However, in this case, we find that the assessee has shown a degree of casualness in handling of tax matters where he has not even taken the trouble of filing any affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) to enable him to appreciate the reasons for more than 2 years of delay. Therefore, in principle, there 3

ITA No.- 207/DDN/2026 Anil and Company . is no fault in the action of Ld. CIT(A). Having said this, we now have to consider whether or not the assessee deserves a second chance to prove his bona fide before the authorities below. In this regard we need to be guided by the locus classicus on the subject in the shape of the case of Mst. Katiji reported in AIR [1987] (SC) 1353. Through this case the golden rule has been laid down that when a conflict exists between substantial justice and technical considerations, the former must prevail. Respectfully following this directive, it is felt that the assessee deserves a second chance for presenting the facts before the AO and thus, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[ANUBHAV SHARMA] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 10.07.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, 4