DAYA NAND,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7470/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay of 891 days and consequently dismissed the appeal. The AO had passed an ex parte assessment order because the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee's representative submitted that the assessee is about 61 years old, has limited education, is an agriculturist, and had sold immovable property. He claimed that no notice was received via registered post or other means, and he could not submit relevant documents to the AO. The assessee prayed for the matter to be restored to the file of the AO. Considering the material facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and the AO. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Daya Nand, is an agriculturist who had not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. During the year, he made cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,41,92,700/- in his bank account, the source of which he failed to explain. Proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated, and an assessment order was passed on 29.12.2016 determining total income at NIL. Subsequently, fresh proceedings under Section 147 were initiated after obtaining approval from the PCIT, Karnal, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.02.2020. The assessee failed to reply or furnish his ITR. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order on 10.09.2021, making an addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 69A and adding income from an undisclosed source of Rs. 74,40,500/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] with a delay of 891 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the condonation of delay application and the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are bad in law due to the absence of approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 151 before issuing the notice under Section 148? The assessee contended that no approval was taken from the PCIT, rendering all proceedings invalid. The revenue relied on the impugned order. 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is time-barred, considering the previous assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 29.12.2016, and the reopening was based on audit objections? The assessee argued that all material facts were disclosed and the reopening was solely due to audit objections. The revenue relied on the impugned order. 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not served on the appellant and was not signed by the AO, making the proceedings bad in law? The assessee claimed non-service and unsigned notice. The revenue relied on the impugned order. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 891 days in filing the appeal by misapplying judicial precedents? The assessee argued that cogent evidence was provided, unlike cases where no evidence was presented, and cited P.K. Ramachandran and Abzony Safety Glass. The revenue relied on the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 151,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: CA Sh. Prerna Goel, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.09.2026Pronounced: 22.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7470/Del/2026, A.Y. 2013-14 Daya Nand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. DF-211, Ward-1, Panipat Panchwati Colony, Samalkha, Panipat (Haryana) 132101 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AMCPN7456M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. H.K. Goel, CA Sh. Prerna Goel, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee is against order dated 22.06.2026 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 7470/Del/2026 Daya Nand

dated 10.09.2021 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the assessment year, the assessee had made total cash deposit of Rs. 1,41,92,700/- in his bank account. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. After obtaining prior approval of Joint CIT notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. After considering response of assessee, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessment at Rs. NIL. Once again proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated. After prior approval of PCIT, Karnal by letter dated 18.02.2020, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.02.2020 was issued. The Assessee failed to reply or furnish ITR. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 10.09.2021 made addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and income from undisclosed source claim of Rs. 74,40,500/-.

3.

Against order dated 10.09.2021 of ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay of 891 days in filing appeal. Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.06.2026 dismiss the application for condonation of delay of 891 days in filing appeal and appeal.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 7470/Del/2026 Daya Nand

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

“1. That on fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act as no approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was taken from the Hon'ble PCIT before issuing the notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact. 2. The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act as notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is time-barred as the appellant's assessment has already been completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on dated 29.12.2016. The appellant had fully and truly disclosed all the material facts during its assessment proceedings and the re- opening of the assessment had been done only on the basis of audit objections. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact. 3. The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act as notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not served to the appellant and even notice issued u/s 148 of Income Tax Act was not signed by the Ld. AO. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact.. 4. The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act without complying with the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed. 5. The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act without considering the submission made by the appellant. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed. 6. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by misapplying judicial precedents (P.K. Ramachandran and Abzony Safety Glass) by failing to appreciate the distinction between a case where no evidence is provided and a case where cogent evidence (a sworn affidavit) is provided but ignored. Hence order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and need to be quashed. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay in the filing of appeal by relying on Pundlik Jalam Patil and Ram Mohan Kabra, which are factually distinguishable as they involve government entities, and by introducing

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 7470/Del/2026 Daya Nand

irrelevant considerations of "motives" unsupported by any material on record. Hence order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) need to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not admitted by refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal as the delay was due to non-service of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessment order in physical form upon the appellant and he not being aware of the e-proceedings, so the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and need to be quashed. 9. The interest charged u/s 234A and 234B of Income Tax Act is bad in law and need to be quashed. 10. That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other that the assessee during the course of appeal hearing or before crave/ leave/ amend/raise any additional ground of appeal.”

5.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that the appellant/assessee is about 61 years and studied up to 5th Class. The assessee agriculturists had sold immovable property. The assessee had not received any notice through registered post or other post. The assessee could not submit relevant document before Ld. AO. The matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO.

6.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

7.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.06.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 891 days in filing appeal and appeal. Ld. AO had passed

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 7470/Del/2026 Daya Nand

ex parte assessment order, since the assessee failed to reply notices. The appellant has prayed for restoration of matter to the file of Ld. AO.

8.

In view of the above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 22.06.2026 of ld. CIT(A) and dated 10.09.2021 of Ld. AO is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:24.09.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →