ANKIT AGRAWAL,CHHATARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR, GWALIOR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,JUDICIALMEMBER ITA No.89/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ankit Agrawal, Ward No. 18, Vs. PCIT,Gwalior-474011 Dislary Campus, Nowgong, Distt-Chhatarpur-471201 PAN :BUTPA3654G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Sharma & Manuj Sharma, Adv Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr DR Date of hearing 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed in revision no. Pr.CIT/GWL/263/2022-23 by the PCIT, Gwalior[hereinafter referred to as the “PCIT”] u/s. 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year A.Y. 2018-19, wherein learned PCIT has set aside the assessment order dated 07.04.2021 passed u/s.143(3) rws 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on the ground of being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, directing the assessing officer to re-examine the issue after

ITA No. 89/Agr/2026

necessary verification inquiry and investigation in respect of excess and unexplained expenses. 2. At the very outset, we notice that this appeal is time barred by 975 days. Ld representative for the assessee has drawn the attention of the bench towards assessee’s delay condonation application and the affidavit filed on behalf of assessee, stating that the notices during the proceeding u/s. 263 were issued through electronic mode and the physical notice was not served upon the appellant. The appellant was unaware of the revisional proceedings. It was only when the appellant’s consultant noticed the revisional order uploaded in the e-proceeding tab, the appellant was informed accordingly on 31.12.2025. Prior to this, assessee had no knowledge of the impugned order. Prayed to condone the said delay. In view of the above explanation of assessee, having no knowledge of the impugned order, supported with uncontroverted affidavit, we treat assessee’s explanation as sufficient and condone the delay caused in filing this appeal. 3. Perused the records. Heard ld representative for the assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 4. Ld representative for the assessee has submitted that ld PCIT has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 89/Agr/2026

Dated: 29.04.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 3 | P a g e