ALLEPPY CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4702/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. This conclusion was reached because, despite due service of notice for the hearing before the ITAT, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, and no adjournment application was filed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. The specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the non-service of notice under Section 148 and the condonation of delay before the CIT(A) were not adjudicated on merits because the appeal itself was dismissed for non-prosecution. The operative direction was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alleppy Chits Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee's grounds of appeal raised concerns about the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and the assessee's submission that notice under Section 148 was never served. Another ground pertained to the CIT(A) not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. During the proceedings before the ITAT, the assessee's counsel submitted that there was a delay of 223 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), which was not condoned. The ITAT noted that despite due service of notice, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment application filed, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without going into the merits and the assessee's submission that notice under Section 148 was never served upon the assessee (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal (Question of law and fact, concerning condonation of delay). Assessee's contentions: - The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits and the submission regarding non-service of notice under Section 148. - The learned CIT(A) failed to condone the delay of 223 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Revenue's contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue's side regarding the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Durbey, CIT D.R
Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year: 2011-12.

2.

Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:

2 ITA No. 4702/Del/2026 Alleppy Chits Pvt. Ltd. “1.0 On the facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department has erred in dismissing the appeal without going into merit and assessee's submission that notice u/s 148 was never served upon the assessee.

2.0 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department has erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

3.0 The appellant craves leave to add or alter any ground of appeal at any time up to the final decision of the appeal, and to reduce additional evidence, if so required while prosecuting the appeal.”

3.

During proceedings before us, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 223 days in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. Even before us nobody has appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite the fact that notice for hearing has been duly served. Thus, this is clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.09.2026 *GP/Sr.PS*

3 ITA No. 4702/Del/2026 Alleppy Chits Pvt. Ltd. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(E) 4. CIT 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →