RISHABH BHATIA,PANIPAT, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANIPAT, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4789/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reason as genuine. The tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be provided a full opportunity of hearing and for all evidence to be considered to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It was clarified that non-cooperation by the assessee would allow the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the CIT(A), which originated from an assessment order under Section 143(3) for AY 2017-18. The appeal to the ITAT was filed with an 18-day delay due to counsel's staff oversight, for which a condonation application was made. Before the CIT(A), the assessee could not appear despite notices and adjournment requests, leading the CIT(A) to pass an ex-parte order confirming additions.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal; denial of adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) leading to an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Udit Dad, Adv
For Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/04/2025Pronounced: 07/04/2025

(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18) Rishabh Bhatia Income Tax Officer, 10-R, Model Town, Panipat, Panipat, Vs. Haryana. Haryana-132103 PAN-AADCN3076F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Udit Dad, Adv. Department by Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/04/2025 O R D E R

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

1.

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, Ward-5, Panipat [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The appeal was barred by limitation for 18 days, in support of which the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, perusal of which, it appears that due to an inadvertent Rishabh Bhatia vs. ITO oversight on the part of the staff at the office of the Counsel for the assessee, the receipt of the impugned order was not promptly brought to the attention of the Ld. Counsel, and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. The assessee being diligent in pursing their matter when enquired from their Counsel about the status of the appeal, the counsel immediately took cognizance of the receipt of the impugned order and filed the appeal. The reason assigned by the assessee for filing the appeal late as discussed hereinabove, seems to be genuine which has also not been confronted by the Ld. DR. Hence, the delay is condoned. The appeal is, thus, admitted.

3.

At the very threshold, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us, that before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not appear inspite of notices being sent upon him and further that adjournments were sought for as he was busy for gathering materials from ample sources. Though such submission made by the assessee has been duly recorded by the Ld. CIT(A), the said authority passed the order ex-parte confirming addition made by the Ld. AO due to such non-compliance made by the assessee. In that view of the matter, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee humbly prays for further opportunities of being heard to the assessee to get the issue considered on merit by the authorities below afresh. Eventually such prayer made by the Ld. AO, has not been confronted by the Ld. DR with all his fairness.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →