CHANCHALA BALLABH PANDEY,PITHORAGARH vs. ACIT/DCIT- INCOME TAX, HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 138/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was based on an oversight and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on a fresh appeal, with directions to condone the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order based on the original assessment order, not the revised order passed under Section 263. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating the grounds were not related to the correct order and confirmed an addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits due to a procedural oversight by the assessee in filing the appeal against the incorrect order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Rawat, CA (VC)
For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)
Hearing: 22.06.2026

ITA No.138/DDN/2026 CHANCHALA BALLABH PANDEY 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.138/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CHANCHALA BALLABH PANDEY, Vs. ACIT/DCIT-INCOME TAX, 36, Cinema Line, Income Tax Office, Pithoragarh, Gaulapar, Haldwani, Uttarakhand 262501. District Nainital, Haldwani, PAN No. ALOPP7514R Uttarakhand 263139. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Suraj Rawat, CA (VC) Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC) Date of hearing: 22.06.2026 Pronouncement on 24.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 28.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 This matter has a rather unusual set off facts which deserve to be briefly mentioned. From the records it is seen that originally an order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act which was dated 22.10.2019. Thereafter, this assessment order was subjected to action u/s 263 of the Act and vide order dated 24.03.2022 the Ld. PCIT-Bareilly directed for an addition of Rs.14,11,525/- on the basis of some claim of insurance (as per para 2 of the impugned order). However, it is seen that the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the original order u/s 143(3) 1

ITA No.138/DDN/2026 CHANCHALA BALLABH PANDEY and not as per the latest order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. On this basis the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with a very short finding as under: -

“3. The grounds of appeal arises out of the original order u/s 143(3) and not out of the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263. There is no discussion of the issue of addition of Rs.14,11,525/- in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263. Moreover, the addition of Rs.14,11,525/- on the basis of letter of intimation of claim of insurance company is valid and is confirmed.” 1.2 The assessee has challenged this action of Ld. CIT(A).

2.

Before us the Ld. AR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in not adjudicating on the grounds before him. Per contra, the Ld. DR stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the matter on the basis of the impugned order before him.

3.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that due to oversite the assessee seems to have missed filling an appeal on the basis of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. It is a trite position that a tax payer’s ignorance of law should not be used against him. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), who will adjudicate on a fresh appeal to be filed by the assessee based on the appropriate assessment order. We also direct that the

ITA No.138/DDN/2026 CHANCHALA BALLABH PANDEY Ld. CIT(A) would condone the delay, u/s 249(3) of the Act, in filing of that appeal and thereafter adjudicate on the basis of merits.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.06.2026 *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

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →