MAHIPAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 138/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 April 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not sufficiently discuss the grounds for condoning the delay before rejecting it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay and then on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an assessment order dated 22.11.2017 under Section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, finding it barred by limitation due to insufficient cause for delay. The assessee contended that the notice was sent to the wrong address, preventing timely filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the prayer for condonation of delay without sufficient discussion. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 07/04/2025Pronounced: 07/04/2025

vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

On 03.12.2024, as regards assessment year 2010-11, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, which he had preferred while challenging assessment order dated Mahipal vs. ITO 22.11.2017 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The appeal stands dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and also because no documentary evidence was submitted to substantiate the grounds of appeal

3. Taking into consideration undisclosed cash deposits, the Assessing Officer had assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 80,00,000/-,.

4. Before Learned CIT(A), the assessee claimed that no notice issued by the Assessing Officer was received by the assessee, the same having been sent at wrong address, and as such the appeal could not be filed before Learned CIT(A) within prescribed period of limitation.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →