ROMICA RAINA,USA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 289/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 41/42 days in filing the appeals was not intentional and was caused by bonafide reasons, thus condoning the delay and admitting the appeals. Regarding the defects, the Tribunal observed that Form No. 35 was filed in ITITA No. 290/Del/2026. For the other two appeals (ITITA No. 288/Del/2026 and ITITA No. 289/Del/2026), Form No. 35 was not found on record. Consequently, the Tribunal restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and remove any defects. The assessee was directed to furnish a copy of Form No. 35 to the CIT(A) within 45 days if it had already been filed. The impugned orders were set aside for statistical purposes with these directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Romica Raina, filed three appeals for Assessment Year 2019-20 against ex-parte orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), dated February 27, 2026. Appeal ITITA No. 288/Del/2026 concerns quantum additions, ITITA No. 289/Del/2026 relates to penalty under Section 271AAC(1), and ITITA No. 290/Del/2026 pertains to penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed with a delay of 41/42 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte, deeming them defective due to the alleged non-filing of Form No. 35. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are to be admitted for adjudication on merits, considering the delay in filing and the alleged defects pointed out by the CIT(A)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The delay in filing the appeals was bonafide and not intentional, and the appeals should be admitted for decision on merits. The assessee also sought to rectify any defects pointed out by the CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not record any specific contention regarding the admission of appeals or the delay in the judgment. The judgment notes that the revenue was represented by Shri EV Bhaskar, Sr. DR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri EV Bhaskar, Sr. DR

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These three appeals by the assessee, all for AY 2019-20 are directed against ex-parte orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’). All the impugned orders are of even date i.e. 27.02.2026.

2.

The appeal of the assessee in IT(IT)A No.288/Del/2026 is against the quantum addition confirmed by the CIT(A), appeal of the assessee in IT(IT)A No.289/Del/2026 is against the penalty levied u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and appeal of the assessee in IT(IT)A No.290/Del/2026 is against the levy penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act.

ITITA 288 to 290/DEL/2026 ROMICA RAINA 3. The appeals are time barred by 41/42 days. The assessee has filed separate applications for condonation of delay in filing of appeals. After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeals is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in applications which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 41/42 days in filing of appeals are condoned and appeals are admitted for decision on merits.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assesse in ex-parte proceedings holding it to be defective as Form No. 35 has allegedly not been filed by the assessee. After examination of appeals sets filed online for the respective appeals, we observe that Form No.35 has been filed in IT(IT)A No. 290/Del/2026. In so far as other two appeals are concerned Form No. 35 is not available on record. We deem it appropriate to restore these appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

5.

The assessee is directed to remove the defect, if any as pointed by the CIT(A). If Form No. 35 has already been filed by the assessee/appellant, a copy of same be furnished to the CIT(A) within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CIT(A) shall take up appeals for hearing after removal of defects by the assessee/appellant.

6.

In the result, impugned order in IT(IT)A No. 288 to 2920/Del2026 are set aside and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose with the aforesaid directions.

Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 02nd day of September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- S RIFAUR RAHMAN VIKAS AWASTHY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 07-September-2026

ITITA 288 to 290/DEL/2026 ROMICA RAINA Copy to: ROMICA RAINA 510 COVINGTON COVE ALPHARETTA 1 999999 FOREIGN GEORGIA USA, USA- 999999, USA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI-110002 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →