MAYA AND CO,ALMORA vs. CIRCLE 2(1)(1) , HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 May 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause, including disputes among trustees and the main trustee's medical treatment. The case was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 98 days due to change of counsel and difficulty in collecting records. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-submission of replies despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice, warranting a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kackar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year : 2022-23] vs Circle-2(1)(1) Maya & Co. C/o-Anand Singh Bisht, Sabji Gaulapar Mandi, Talla Danya, Almora, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263601 Haldwani, PAN-ABQFM7518J Uttarakhand APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Prashant Kackar, CA Respondent by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 25.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.05.2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A), in short] dated 18.07.2025 arising out of the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 15.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 98 days. Before us, an application for condonation of delay alongwith an

2 ITA No.6/DDN/2026 affidavit is as filed. In the said petition, it is stated that assessee has changed the counsel and for collecting the details and records, the delay was occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is thus submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful and the circumstances are beyond the control of the assessee thus it is requested to condone the delay.

3.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee society.

4.

Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 98 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. In the instant case there were disputes between the trustees and further the main trustee was undergone medical treatment of cancer. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is hereby, condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

3 ITA No.6/DDN/2026 5. At the outset, from the perusal of the orders of Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders ex-parte as the assessee has not filed any reply despite of providing three opportunities to file the submissions. Thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee has challenged the orders of CIT(A) before the Tribunal where Grounds of appeal No. 3 is taken for violation of principal of natural justice.

6.

Heard the parties and considered the facts of the case. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that Ld. CIT(A) has provided various opportunities however, the assessee did not submit any written submission/reply. In this background that the CIT(A) proceeded to disposed-off this appeal of the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO. It is true that assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents in support of the claim made in grounds of appeals. It is also observed that before the AO also, assessee has not filed complete details and information as called for from time to time therefore, the AO has also passed the order based on the material available on record.

7.

Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we remand case back to the file of AO with the directions to pass the order denovo fresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed

4 ITA No.6/DDN/2026 to appear before the AO and file all the relevant information in support of the claim.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MAMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:04.06.2026 Amit Kumar Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELH

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →