JYOTI YADAV,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURGAON

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1), Section 143(1)(a), Section 250

ITA 5133/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2015-165 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee as an individual, was of the view that she ought to be given one more opportunity to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits in the interest of substantial justice over procedural irregularities. The Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within one month. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the issues on merits, in accordance with law, based on the submissions and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the decision on the substantive grounds (issues 2, 3, and 4) is contingent upon the Ld. CIT(A)'s re-adjudication after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jyoti Yadav, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.10.2015, declaring an income of Rs.6,17,131/-. This included 'other expenses' of Rs.1,30,75,009/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CPC, which disallowed these 'other expenses', leading to an addition to the total income and a demand of Rs.53,07,052/-. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), challenging this disallowance and other issues. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 11.03.2016, primarily on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal (eight years and ten months) and the failure to substantiate the claimed expenses. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee for condonation of delay? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the adjustment/disallowance of Rs.1,30,75,009/- made by CPC under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 143(1)(a) of the Act? (Question of law) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the expenses claimed by the assessee were genuine business expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and duly supported by books of account and other documentary evidences? (Mixed question of law and fact) 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereby violated the principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee's unawareness of the demand, as the intimation was uploaded on the Income Tax portal, which the assessee, being non-conversant with technicalities, could not access in time. An oversight by the engaged Chartered Accountant also contributed. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to genuine circumstances beyond control. The expenses claimed were genuine business expenditures supported by evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the prayer of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(1)(a),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Pushpak Garg, CA & Shri

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta

Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) , 2015- 2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

2 “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the sufficient cau

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →