ARVIND,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4639/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to file on time. The appeal was then restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 241 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving the CIT(A) order physically and being unaware of its electronic dispatch to their authorized representative.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 03.03.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4639/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Arvind Vs. ITO C/o Anu Jain & Company Rewari 272-R, First Floor, Near Palika Complex, Model Town, Rewari PAN No. ARCPK6469J

Appellant Respondent

Appellant by Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that this appeal is filed with delay of 241 days and a petition alognwith affidavit was filed by the assessee explaining the delay in filing the appeal.

3.

Referring to the condonation petition the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee is not well versed with the income tax proceedings and the assessee had never received physical copy of the appellate order in person or through postal services. The order was sent electronically through e-mail Id of Authorized Representative of the assessee and the e-mail address provided by him i.e., ajaykairan@gmail.com.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was under bonafide belief that first appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was still pending for decision and order will be received by him through postal services or through his counsel. The Assessee came to the knowledge of the fact about the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which was passed on 23.09.2024, when the assessee got the information from the Income Tax department to deposit tax demand pending against him. On knowing that the appeal of the assessee was disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee immediately approached CA Sanjeev Jain for filing an appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly appeal was electronically filed on 29.07.2025 resulting in 241 days delay. Therefore, it is submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate and delay occurred for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee.

5.

Heard rival submissions. On hearing both the sides and perusing the petition for condonation of delay and

affidavit filed by the assessee we find that the assessee was prevented with reasonable cause in filing the appeal with the delay of 241 days and thus the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

6.

Coming to the merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was disposed of exparte by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

Considering the rival submissions we are of the view that this appeal should go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026

NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →