What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee faced a delay of 644 days in filing an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee claimed the delay was due to business cessation, reliance on a negligent Chartered Accountant, and improper service of notices by the NFAC.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was caused by sufficient cause, and whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was justified without proper service of notice.

Pushpendre Sirohi, Rudrapur vs ITO | ITAT Dehradun 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Hearing: 23.06.2026

ITA No.194/DDN/2026 PUSHPENDRA SIROHI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.194/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 PUSHPENDRA SIROHI, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, House No.152, Chhatarpur, Rudrapur, National e-Assessment Centre, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, New Delhi, Delhi 110001. Uttarakhand 263153. PAN No. ERNPS0162M Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC) Date of hearing: 23.06.2026 Pronouncement on 25.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 24.04.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. In this case, there is a delay of 644 days, as reported by the ITAT Registry. The assessee has filed a detailed petition seeking condonation of delay, some portions from which deserve to be extracted: -

“2. The Appellant respectfully submits that this delay is neither the result of negligence nor deliberate inaction. It is the inevitable outcome of circumstances beyond his control-namely, the complete closure of business after AY 2021-22, total disengagement from the tax ecosystem, reliance on a Chartered Accountant who failed in his professional duty, and, most critically, NFAC's failure to effect proper service of notices. Each of these factors, individually and collectively, constitutes "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 253(5) of the Act, warranting condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

ITA No.194/DDN/2026 PUSHPENDRA SIROHI II. CESSATION OF BUSINESS AND WITHDRAWAL FROM TAX ECOSYSTEM 1. The Appellant had consistently and diligently filed returns of income for Assessment Years 2013-14 through 2021-22, with the final return submitted on 30.03.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant's business was permanently closed. No taxable income arose, no commercial activity was carried on, and consequently no returns were filed for subsequent years. The last act of compliance with the tax authorities was the filing of a reply in penalty proceedings on 16.07.2021 by the Appellant's Chartered Accountant. 2. Following the complete cessation of business, the Appellant had no occasion or reason to remain engaged with the tax system. He was neither conducting business, nor maintaining an active relationship with a Chartered Accountant for ongoing compliance, nor monitoring the income-tax portal for notices or orders. In every practical sense, the Appellant was entirely removed from the orbit of tax administration. 3. It was only in February 2026, upon receipt of a penalty order, that the Appellant first became aware that the NFAC appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.04.2024. The Appellant acted with utmost promptness and diligence upon learning this fact, immediately engaging counsel and preparing the present appeal. Any further delay after February 2026 is solely attributable to the reasonable time required for drafting and filing, which cannot be construed as negligence. 4. The dismissal of the NFAC appeal for alleged "non-prosecution" is fundamentally unsustainable, as it presupposes that proper and effective notice was served upon the Appellant or his representative, thereby affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing. In reality, no such effective service was ever made. 5. NFAC notices were confined to uploads on the income-tax e-portal, and stray emails, if any, were diverted to the spam folder and never actually read or acted upon. No notice was served by post or through any other reliable mode that could reasonably have brought the proceedings to the Appellant's attention. The dismissal for non- prosecution is therefore founded on a fiction of service and stands in direct violation of the principles of natural justice and due process. ……………Prayer: In view of the above facts and circumstances and binding judicial precedents, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly: (i) Condone the delay of 644 days in filing the present appeal, the same being occasioned by sufficient cause as set out above; (ii) Admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication on merits in the interest of substantial justice.”…..

ITA No.194/DDN/2026 PUSHPENDRA SIROHI 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

In this case, the Ld. AR brought to our notice the very cryptic order of Ld. CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground of non- persuasion. It was the prayer that since the assessee’s business had seized to exist, hence, the notices issued by the Department could not be received as the assessee was not alert about proceedings before the Tax Authorities. It was the prayer that the assessee may be given one more chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A).

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

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We feel that in the interest of justice, this matter deserves to be examined on merits and for this reason, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.06.2026

ITA No.194/DDN/2026 PUSHPENDRA SIROHI *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

PUSHPENDRE SIROHI,RUDRAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments