ANURUDH LAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-5, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1589/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on its merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to a delay of 1256 days in filing. The delay was attributed to a staff member's mistake in tracking timelines, supported by an affidavit.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the appeal should be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Pronounced: 24.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 1589/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) ANURUDH LAL DCIT, Central Circle-5, Jhandewalan Extn. C/O M/S RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES L-7A LGF SOUTH NEW DELHI-110055 Vs. EXTENSION PART-2 DELHI, NEW DELHI-110049 अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAACH9293H

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA & Shri J.P. Sharma, CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Rajore Chandra Ramsevak, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 23.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 24.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, dated 10.02.2026 arising out of penalty order dated 26.03.2022 passed by DCIT, Central Circle-05, New Delhi, under section 271AAB for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA 1589/DEL/2026 ANURUDH LAL

2.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Raj Kumar, informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the penalty order u/s 271AAB dated 26.03.2022 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay of 1256 days and for which it had justified grounds. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had tried to justify the delay also on account of mistake of the staff one Shri Juzar Singh of the ld. Counsel in keeping track of the time lines. In support of its contentions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on records an affidavit, inter alia, owning of the mistake of its staff member. It was argued that the CIT(A) has not given any decision on the merits of the case. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication on its merits by condoning the delay and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not tender any serious objection to the proposal. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte. 4. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assessee as to why it could not file its appeal in time, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Coming to the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority, we have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon

Page 2 of 3

ITA 1589/DEL/2026 ANURUDH LAL

merits of the case. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 1256 days in filing of appeal in this case and for re-adjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assessee and to pass a speaking order. The assessee shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assessee side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter de novo in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.06.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →