NAVRAJ SINGH,CHAK-FIVE-M vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1214/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed ex parte and the first appeal was dismissed as time-barred without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they only became aware of the proceedings on 30.09.2022 when a penalty demand notice was received, and that the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay to enable disposal on merits and achieve substantial justice. The Tribunal found that to ensure issues are decided on merits and to achieve the goal of justice, the appellant should be allowed to submit an explanation with documentary evidence. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an effective opportunity of being heard. The appellant was also directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Navraj Singh, is in appeal against the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the CIT(NFAC), Delhi, which upheld the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the AO under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee's case was flagged in the NMS data for substantial cash deposits of Rs. 1,36,18,435/- in his bank account without filing a return of income. Despite notices, the assessee did not respond, leading the AO to pass an ex-parte assessment order treating the entire sum as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred, with a delay of 179 days, without a decision on the merits. The assessee claims to have become aware of the proceedings only on 30.09.2022 when a demand notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay of 179 days, thereby precluding a decision on the merits of the case, as per the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst Katiji (1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC))? Assessee's Contention: The Learned AR argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case and the assessee's submissions. The assessee submitted that they only became aware of the assessment proceedings on 30.09.2022 when a demand notice for penalty was received, and the delay in filing the appeal was due to this lack of knowledge. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst Katiji to argue for a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial justice. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR relied upon the orders passed by both the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR

Before: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 10.09.2026Pronounced: 27.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-1214/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Years- 2013-14) NAVRAJ SINGH, ITO WARD-1, Navraj Singh of Chak, Vs. SRI GANGANAGAR 5M Srikaranpur, Rajasthan Disst. Sri Ganganagar 335073 PAN No: BSOPS4156A APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shafi Mohammad Chouhan, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR Date of Hearing :10.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.10.2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal preferred against the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC(Appeals), Delhi, arising out of the order of the Learned AO dated 24.03.2022 under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’) for AY 2013-14.

2.

Facts of the case may be summarised as that the case of appellant was reflecting in the NMS data (Non-filler list) on the system, who made substantial cash of Rs. 1.36.18.435/-, deposits in his bank account, maintained with HDFC Bank but not filled return of income, during AY under consideration. During the assessement proceedings, various notices, as required by law, were issued time to time, the Learned AO, passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and as no any reply had been received from the appellant during entire assessment proceedings and so treated Rs. 1,36,18,435/- out of undisclosed sources, which was challenged by way of appeal and the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and resultantly, appellant before us.

3.

Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the record.

4.

Reiteriting the grounds of appeal, the Learned AR expressed grievance that the Learned CIT(A), dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of case as well as the submissions of appellant.

Page 2 of 6

5.

Per Contra, the Learned DR relied upon orders passed by both the lower authorities.

6.

We find that the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, passed ex parte and the first appeal dismissed time barred, as appeal presented after delay of 179 days. It is noticed that, the appellant submitted before the Learned CIT(A), that he only came to know about assessment and other proceedings on 30-09-2022, when department sent the demand notice for penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, but the Learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay. In 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst Katiji, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay, in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits and expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice and also there is no any presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. It is established principle of law that courts should adopt liberal

Page 3 of 6

approach, while deciding the issue of condonation of delay, by preferring disposal on merit. The Learned AR also submitted that the Learned AO has passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and the Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as time barred, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, so the matter may be remit back to the file of the Learned AO for fresh adjudication.

7.

On the basis of fact situation of the case as aforesaid, in order to ensure disposal of issues on its merits alone and to achieve the goal of justice, we find the appellant should be allowed to submit explanation with relevant documentary evidence, the impugned order of the Learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is restore to the file of the Learned AO, with the direction to decide afresh after providing effective opportunity of being heard and simultaneously the appellant is also directed to cooperate in the assessment proceeding.

8.

Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.

Page 4 of 6

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/10/2026. True Copy

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →