Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was delayed by 388 days. The assessee, having been struck off the Registrar of Companies, failed to comply with notices due to ex-parte orders being passed. The delay was attributed to bonafide reasons and was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's explanation for non-compliance. Given that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to an ex-parte order against the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 151, 148A, 234A, 234B, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.08.2024, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [for short, ‘AO’] u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act vide order dated 23.05.2023.
At the threshold, it is observed that the appeal is time-barred by 388 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee vide its application dated 17.11.2025. It has been explained therein that the assessee company has been struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies and 1 | P a g e
7434_DEL_2025_ Northern Realty Infra Pvt Ltd therefore the assessment order and the penalty orders were both passed ex-parte as the Counsel of the assessee company did not respond to the assessee nor made requisite compliance before the Income Tax authorities. The applicant, a Director of the assessee company, came to know about these orders only when a message regarding outstanding tax liability was received on his mobile number. Thereafter, he took immediate steps to file the present appeal. Thus, the delay was due to bonafide reasons and therefore, deserves to be condoned.
2.1 We have heard both the parties. We are of the considered view that the delay is on account of genuine and reasonable cause and hence, the same is hereby condoned.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit ("Assessing Officer"/ "AO") erred in completing reassessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an income of Rs.6,36,95,000 as against the returned income of Nil under normal provisions of the Act.
Validity of reassessment proceedings/order:
2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 22.07.2022 is barred by limitation having been issued beyond the surviving period as laid down in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: 469 ITR 46 (SC) and hence bad in law.
2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, impugned proceedings were. from the very beginning, wholly without jurisdiction, having been initiated in the name and PAN of a non-existent entity and hence void ab- initio, illegal and liable to be quashed.
7434_DEL_2025_ Northern Realty Infra Pvt Ltd 2.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings having been initiated merely on the basis of ex-parte information received, without any independent application of mind by the AO to such information and forming opinion thereof, is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed.
2.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings are untenable as the same were initiated merely on the basis of information received from office of ITO, thus are bad in law, as it fails to meet the statutory requirement of being an "information" as per the Explanation appended to the proviso to section 148 of the Act.
2.5. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings having been initiated beyond a period of 4 years without satisfying the grandfathered conditions of first proviso to pre- amended section 147 of the Act, are, in any case, barred by limitation and hence illegal and bad-in-law.
2.6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is bad in law and void-ab-initio since proper sanction under section 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under amended section 148, have been obtained from wrong authority, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
2.7 That the AO erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings without providing copy of mandatory sanction obtained under section 151 before initiating proceedings under section 148/148A of the Act.
2.8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in adopting the procedure of the new reassessment regime inasmuch as no order under section 148(d) was passed vitiating the entire proceedings and rendering the impugned reassessment order as non-est, void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
7434_DEL_2025_ Northern Realty Infra Pvt Ltd 2.9 The initiation of the reassessment proceedings on mere suspicion and presumption as is the present case is bad in law, illegal, rendering the impugned order liable to be quashed.
Without Prejudice On merits
That the AO erred in not appreciating that there is no escapement of income and hence the impugned proceedings were initiated and continued on fundamentally erroneous facts without escapement of income and hence is wholly without jurisdiction, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in making an addition of Rs.6,36,95,000 on account of purchase of immovable property, when in fact such property was never purchased, rendering the impugned reassessment bad in law and liable to be quashed.
That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B of the Act.
That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in mechanically and vaguely initiating penalty under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend or vary the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
4. At the outset, it is noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte. The assessee could not make any compliance to the multiple notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to 4 | P a g e
7434_DEL_2025_ Northern Realty Infra Pvt Ltd restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09 -03-2026.