SATISH CHANDRA HUF,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAINPURI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,JUDICIALMEMBER ITA No.99/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Satish Chandra Huf, Sakrapur Vs. ITO, Civil Line Mainpuri, Etah- Arsara Mainpuri, Etah-206302 206002

PAN :ABBHS4666N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr DR Date of hearing 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 23.04.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2016-17/10096449 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax, (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year A.Y. 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte. 2. At the very outset, we notice that none has responded for the assessee. According to registry report, the appeal is time barred by 338 days. In response to the defect of delay, assessee has filed an application

ITA No. 99/Agr/2026

dated 17.03.2026 along with his affidavit, stating that he was totally dependent on his accountant for preparation of record, filing of ITR and compliance of notices and filing appeal against orders. Assessee did not receive the impugned order by post. It was only when he received letter dated 07.11.2025 in respect of balance demand in the second week of November 2025, when he came to know about the impugned order. After contacting his senior chartered accountant, he downloaded the impugned order from the ITBA portal on 28.11.2025 and the instant appeal was filed on 03.02.2026. Accordingly, there is no delay after the date of knowledge in November 2025. We accept the cause supported with uncontroverted affidavit as true and treat it as sufficient and condone the delay caused in filing this appeal. 3. It is further noticed that the first appeal has been decided by ld. CIT(A) as exparte. 4. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was afforded various opportunities for making response. However, assessee failed to make any submissions. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided the appeal exparte. 5. Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 99/Agr/2026

order passed u/s. 270A of the Act, ignoring the fact that necessary notices were not served upon the assessee. 7. We notice that Ld. CIT(A) has provided various opportunities to the assessee during the first appellate proceedings on 25.07.2023, 05.08.2024, 14.10.2024 and 04.11.2024. We, however, note that learned CIT(A), has not passed the order on merit. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. Learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass speaking order. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 99/Agr/2026

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 29.04.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e