DEEPAK GARG,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

ITA 7466/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2026AY 2011-125 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 233 days in filing all four appeals, acknowledging the severe mental and physical trauma the assessee underwent, including complex brain surgeries and family disputes. Regarding the merits of the additions, the Tribunal found that while the assessee did make some compliance before the AO, their ability to present their case was hampered by their medical condition. The Tribunal expressed sympathy for the assessee's situation. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to present all necessary documents before the CIT(A), who may, if required, call for a remand report from the AO. The issue of assumption of jurisdiction was not expressly decided, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a batch of four appeals filed by Shri Deepak Garg (the assessee) against the DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal, for assessment years 2011-12 and 2015-16. The appeals were filed with a delay of 233 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing complex brain surgery on March 14, 2016, a worsening of his condition in 2022 requiring a second surgery on March 15, 2023, and a serious family dispute during this period. The Tribunal condoned the delay. The lead appeal, ITA 7466/DEL/2026 for AY 2011-12, arose from an order dated September 12, 2025, by the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, which confirmed additions made by the AO. These additions included Rs. 9,59,601/- on account of jewellery found during a search, Rs. 14,43,617/- for retail invoices of jewellery purchases, and Rs. 4,00,000/- for undisclosed jewellery investment. The CIT(A) had confirmed these additions because the assessee did not attend proceedings after filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the assessee's medical condition and family circumstances? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of jewellery found, retail invoices, and undisclosed investment in jewellery are sustainable on merits, especially when the assessee could not adequately present their case before the lower authorities due to medical and personal reasons? (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to Section 144 and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that due to severe physical and mental trauma, including complex brain surgeries and family disputes, they were unable to make adequate compliance before the lower authorities. They claimed to possess documents to establish the bona fides of the transactions and requested another opportunity to present their case. They also challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the lower authorities on merits. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the AO had passed a good order on merits which deserved to be supported.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA Nos.7466, 7467, 7468 & 7469/DEL/2026 DEEPAK GARG 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.7466/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2011-12 SHRI DEEPAK GARG, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal, House No.38, Kishor Garden, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Police Chowki, Assandh Road, Sector-12, HUDA, Karnal Panipat 132103, Haryana. 132001, HARYANA. PAN No.AIRPG6737B Appellant Respondent ITA No.7467/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 SHRI DEEPAK GARG, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal, House No.38, Kishor Garden, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Police Chowki, Assandh Road, Sector-12, HUDA, Karnal Panipat 132103, Haryana. 132001, HARYANA. PAN No.AIRPG6737B Appellant Respondent ITA No.7468/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 SHRI DEEPAK GARG, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal, House No.38, Kishor Garden, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Police Chowki, Assandh Road, Sector-12, HUDA, Karnal Panipat 132103, Haryana. 132001, HARYANA. PAN No.AIRPG6737B Appellant Respondent ITA No.7469/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 SHRI DEEPAK GARG, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal, House No.38, Kishor Garden, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Police Chowki, Assandh Road, Sector-12, HUDA, Karnal Panipat 132103, Haryana. 132001, HARYANA. PAN No.AIRPG6737B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri H.K. Goel, CA & Ms. Prerna Goel, Adv. Revenue by Shri Robin Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.09.2026 Pronouncement on 21.09.2026

ITA Nos.7466, 7467, 7468 & 7469/DEL/2026 DEEPAK GARG O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. This is a batch of four appeals pertaining to the same assessee. All the four appeals are time barred by 233 days. For the sake of convenience, ITA 7466 pertaining to AY 2011-12 is being dealt with as the lead case.

1.1 In this case, the assessee has filed a detailed petition seeking condonation of delay. For the sake of brevity, the salient point from this petition are being captured. It has been stated that the assessee has under gone a complex brain surgery on 14.03.2016. However, in 2022 the assessee’s condition worsened, with a second surgery on 15.03.2023. During this period there was also a serious dispute in the assessee’s family. Only after the assessee could recover in health then the appeals have been filed. In all the remaining three appeals also similar reasons have been given.

1.2 Considering the reasons given in the petitions seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 233 days in all the appeals is condoned.

ITA 7466 (lead case) arises from order dated 12.09.2025 passed u/s 250 by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon. In para 3 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the assessee has not attended to the proceedings after filing the appeal. Needless to say, the additions made by the Ld. AO were confirmed as under:

ITA Nos.7466, 7467, 7468 & 7469/DEL/2026 DEEPAK GARG i. Rs.9,59,601/- has been added on account of jewellery found during the course of search operation on the M/s Garg Group on 22.06.2016. ii. An addition of Rs.14,43,617/- has been made on account of retail invoices regarding purchase of jewellery by the assessee. The Ld. AO dismissed the explanation filed by the assessee and made the addition. iii. An addition of Rs.4,00,000/- has been made on account of allegedly undisclosed investment in jewellery by the assessee. While making the impugned addition the Ld. AO has held that the explanation filed by the assessee was not adequate and therefore worthy of being rejected.

2.1 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where all these additions have been confirmed on the ground that the assessee did not comply with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

2.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the addition on merits and also challenging the assumption of jurisdiction.

Before us the Ld. AR mainly argued that due to the physical and mental problems faced by the assessee, as detailed in the petition seeking condonation of delay, the assessee was not able to make adequate compliance before the authorities below. It was argued that the assessee has considerable documents to establish the bona fides of the transactions being doubted by the Ld. AO and given another chance he would be able to prove the same. 3

ITA Nos.7466, 7467, 7468 & 7469/DEL/2026 DEEPAK GARG 3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that the Ld. AO has passed a good order on merits and it deserves to be supported.

We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee did make some compliance before the Ld. AO but we need to be sympathetic on the ground that the assessee was undergoing severe mental and physical trauma at that time. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee must present all necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and in case required, the Ld. CIT(A) may call for a remand report from the Ld. AO.

4.1 In the result, appeal (ITA 7466) is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

4.2 Since the remaining three appeals are also on a similar footing, hence, they are also remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), mutatis mutandis, after setting aside the impugned orders in these three cases.

In the result, all these four appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.7466, 7467, 7468 & 7469/DEL/2026 DEEPAK GARG Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →