GORE LAL YADAV,JHANSI vs. ITO-2(3)(1), JHANSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 194/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 June 2026AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence and claim deductions.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay. Both the lower authorities had passed ex parte orders without securing the assessee's presence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified, and whether the assessee should be allowed to present evidence for deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P Satsangi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/05/2026Pronounced: 02/06/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 194/AGR/2026 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gore Lal Yadav, Vs. ITO, Suryapuram Khadan, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi, UP Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ABPPY3786M Assessee by : Shri Sahib P Satsangi, CA Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 02/06/2026

O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 194/AGR/2026 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 10.06.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 10.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

At the outset, I find there is delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal by 1278 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I hold that assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. In the interest of substantial justice, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication.

3.

On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that both the orders were passed ex parte without securing the presence of the

ITA No. 194/AGR/2026 Gore Lal Yadav

assessee. Hence in the interest of justice and fairplay, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore these appeals to the file of the learned AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law qua the issues in dispute before me. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of her contentions. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the learned AO for expeditious disposal of the set aside assessment proceedings by not taking unwarranted adjournments except due to exceptional or bonafide circumstances. The assessee is entitled to file additional evidences, if any, in support of his contentions to prove the benefit of claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act for reinvestment in property, among others. Accordingly, the additional evidences filed by the assessee before me in terms of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules are hereby admitted and sent back to the file of the ld AO. With these observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02/06/2026.

-Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 02/06/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A)

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →