BAHADUR SINGH,ZIRAKPUR PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and not based on merits, relying solely on the AO's assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a senior citizen, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The appeal was filed with a delay of 212 days due to the appellant's ill health.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without considering evidence and principles of natural justice is sustainable. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2011-12.
2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:
A.Y. 2011-12 2 “1. That the Appellant is a senior citizen aged above 68 years and is severe diabetic and high blood pressure patient. The Appellant is not much educated or qualified and does not know about the law of Income Tax.
That Appellant had received notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act 1961, issued by the Income Tax Officer ward 3 (5), Chandigarh on 30/03/2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and reply to notice was filed stating various sources of income and related documents were filed. The Appellant had income from sale of bajri, reta (building material), agriculture income and also sale of agriculture land has been reflected under the head of Long Term Capital Gains in the return filed u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act.
3. That the Assessing Officer has grossly erred by not accepting the agreement to sell executed with the persons to whom the Appellant had agree to sell his land as well as the Affidavits given by the purchasers. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 31,37,000/- instead of Rs. 30,00,000/- in very rash and hasty manner without any application of facts and law and has blatantly refused to consider Affidavits, Agreement to Sell as evidence. Moreover, the order of the A.O. also suffers from mismatch of date of filing of the I.T.R. which clearly indicates the time devoted by the A.O. for this assessment.
4. That further the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) has up held the irrational order of the Assessing Officer specially the non-admission of evidence with regard to cash deposits of 30,00,000/- stating that "the assessee was asked to produce the persons with whom the biannas are executed". The A.Y. 2011-12 3 Appellant is ignorant of law yet the investigation was also open from the assessing officer's side and he could as well issue summons u/s 131 of the L.T. Act to examine the witnesses who are under oath as per their Affidavits according to law.
5. That the Appellant was aggrieved therefore filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner but due to old age, body ailments and Inconsistent health alongwith the effects of corona, Ignorance of law due to illiteracy and lack of communication led the worthy Commissioner pass an ex-parte order.
That the actions of the Assessing Officer are full of ignorance as he has made addition which is erroneous and without cross verification more over the Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the order without applying the Principals of natural Justice and has passed ex-parte orders which need to be quashed in the interest of Justice and Fair play.
7. That the Appellant prays to be allowed to take up additional grounds during the hearing of this appeal.”
3. The registry has pointed out that the appeal is time- barred by 212 days for this the ld. counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 13th May, 2024 which is reproduced as under:
A.Y. 2011-12 4 “1. That the appellant is filing the accompanying appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 under section 253 of the Income Tax Act before this Honorable Court.
2. That there is delay of about 7 months in filing of the present appeal, which has occurred as the Appellant was suffering from old age, body ailments and Inconsistent health hence could not contact his counsel for f iling the present appeal in time.
That the above said delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the bonafide reason stated herein.
4. That the above said delay is bonafide and not intentional or deliberate on the part of Appellant.”
We have considered the issues brought out in the affidavit for condonation of delay and we are inclined to condone the delay.
The ld. DR did not have any objection in the condonation of delay.
6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel of the assessee brought out on record that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order ex-parte because of non-compliance by the assessee because of bad health of the assessee and many age-related deceases even though it is an ex-parte A.Y. 2011-12 5 order. The ld. CIT(A) has not passed an order on merits rather he has simply relied on the assessment order passed by the A.O.
We have considered the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and we also find that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) are not on merits.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
In our considered opinion, keeping in view, natural justice to the assessee, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the A.O. for passing an order de- novo after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the A.O. in order to complete the assessment order, all legal and factual issues will be available to the assessee.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 01.04.2025.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
