BAHADUR SINGH SAGGU, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1614/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 April 2026AY 2020-20212 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the delay of 47 days to be small and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to allow the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order framed on best judgment basis, which included additions for investments and unexplained assets. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 47-day delay in filing for condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and if the assessment order should be set aside to allow the assessee to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 24-11-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27-03-2025. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made twin addition of investments for Rs.157.25 Lacs and another addition of Rs.2.50 Lacs u/s 69 for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 47 days against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is adjudication of appeal on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

We are of the opinion that small delay of 47 days could have been condoned. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO since the assessee has remained unrepresented during assessment proceedings also. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the assessment is restored back to Ld. AO for denovo assessment. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →