LADO DASS SULANIA,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1692/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals for multiple assessment years (2013-14 to 2016-17) with significant delays. The delay was attributed to non-service of orders and notices at the correct address, leading to a communication gap.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned due to non-service of notices, and whether the matters should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA Nos.1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/DEL/2026 LADO DASS SULANIA 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.1688/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, Gali No.6, TAX (APPEALS), Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent ITA No.1689/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent ITA No.1690/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent ITA No.1691/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent

ITA Nos.1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/DEL/2026 LADO DASS SULANIA ITA No.1692/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent

ITA No.1693/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent

ITA No.1694/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent & ITA No.1695/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 LADO DASS SULANIA, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RZ-8/290, Prem Sadan, (APPEALS), Gali No.6, Geetanjali Park, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046. CENTRE (NFAC), PAN No. AFJPS7693K DELHI. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Prem Lamba, CA Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.07.2026 Pronouncement on 08.07.2026

ITA Nos.1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/DEL/2026 LADO DASS SULANIA O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. These are a batch of eight appeals pertaining to the same assessee. The years under consideration are AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. Each of these years have two appeals, one pertaining to the quantum and another to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”).

2.

The assessee has invariably filed affidavits seeking condonation of delay in all these cases on the ground that the appeals could be filed only after six months or more of the passing of impugned orders. For the sake of reference, the affidavit in ITA No.1688/Del/2026 (AY 2013-14) is being extracted as under: -

“Lado Dass Sulania, son of Nanak Dass Sulania, aged 66 residing at Rz-8/290, Prem Sadan Gali No.-6 Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am the Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal and am well conversant with the facts of the case. 2. That the Order of the CIT(A), Delhi/NFAC was passed on 06/05/2025.

3.

That the said order was not delivered at my correct address Rz-8/290, Prem Sadan Gall No.-6 Geetanjall Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046. 4. That I was informed about the order only on call from the Income Tax Department in last week of January 2026 regarding recovery of demand. 5. That the address mentioned on recovery letter is B-97, Niti Bagh, New Delhi-110049 is never belong to me. I am residing at

ITA Nos.1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/DEL/2026 LADO DASS SULANIA Rz-8/290, Prem Sadan Gali No.-6 Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046 since 1990. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal is caused due to this non- service and not due to any negligence on my part. 7. That the contents of the attached condonation application are true to my knowledge and belief.”

2.1 Considering the reasons given in the said affidavit, the delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. Since the remaining seven appeals are also on similar footing, hence, they are also being admitted for adjudication, after condoning the delay.

3.

The Ld. AR brought to our notice that the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) or even file any submissions since there was a communication gap between him and the Ld. CIT(A), considering that he did not receive the hearing notices. It was requested that these matters may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the facts have not been thrashed out at lower levels.

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

4.

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that in all the eight appeals the assessee could not comply to any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). These facts are clearly mentioned in pages 3 to 4 of most of these impugned orders. In the light of this position, and in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside all the impugned orders 4

ITA Nos.1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695/DEL/2026 LADO DASS SULANIA and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The effect of this order would be that while the quantum matters would be adjudicated on merits, the penalty matters would be decided on the basis of any quantum surviving after the adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee would ensure that there is prompt response to the notices for hearing to be issued by the Ld. CIT(A) in all the cases.

5.

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 *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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →