AMAN SHARMA,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6366/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President), MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the delay was allegedly due to notices being sent to a wrong email ID, while the correct email ID was provided in Form 35 and on the IT portal.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file his return for AY 2017-18. Based on information from the Insight portal, the AO issued a notice under section 148 due to financial transactions. Since there was no compliance, the assessment was completed under section 144 read with sections 147 and 144B. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but the appeal was delayed by 132 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without condoning the same, and whether the delay was attributable to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI :

1.

The above captioned appeal is filed by assessee are preferred against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, New Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) dated 23.09.2025 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10516539. Assessment in the respective appeals was framed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal against the ex-parte order of Ld. CIT(A) whereby the appeal was dismissed in limine and the delay of 132 days in filing of appeal was not condoned.

3.

Brief facts are that the assessee did not file his return for A.Y. 2017-18. In view of information available on the Insight portal, the Ld. AO issued a notice u/s 148 as the assessee had entered into financial transactions totalling Rs. 109,68,592/- even though he was a non-filer during the year under consideration. As no compliance was made by the assessee to multiple notices issued by the Ld. AO, the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B at assessed income of Rs. 1,24,57,581/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was however delayed by 132 days.

3.1 Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine holding that no valid cause for the delay had been shown by the assessee and hence the delay was not condoned. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have considered the facts and circumstances as submitted by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and heard the Ld. DR . We note that the delay in filing of appeal is stated to be on account of the fact that all the notices were sent on a wrong email id by the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) whereas the correct email id was mentioned in Form 35 as well as in the assessee’s profile on the IT portal. 2 | P a g e

5.

Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20-01-2026.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →