AKANSH AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-59(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6428/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 01.09.2022 deserves to be condoned, in light of the explanation submitted by the assessee. Consequently, both appeals were restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee with due opportunity. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the assessment or penalty orders, as the appeals were being remanded due to procedural issues. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, when adequately explained, can be condoned to allow for a decision on merits, especially when the other party does not object to a remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Akansh Aggarwal, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against two separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi, dated 17.09.2025 and 19.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee's representative submitted that both orders of the Ld. CIT(A) were ex-parte. In one instance, the appeal against the assessment order dated 01.09.2022 was dismissed in limine for a delay of 164 days in filing. In the other instance, concerning a penalty order under section 270A, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that no appeal was filed against the assessment order, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of the penalty appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee requested a remand of both appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 01.09.2022 deserves to be condoned? The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The revenue did not object to the assessee's request for remand. 2. Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal against the penalty order under section 270A by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified? The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) made a wrong observation regarding the non-filing of an appeal against the assessment order and dismissed the penalty appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The revenue did not object to the assessee's request for remand. The Tribunal was to decide whether to remand both matters for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA, Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate
Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 6427/DEL/2025
ITA No. 6428/ DEL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Assessment Year: 2020-21 Akansh Aggarwal Vs ITO, WARD 59(1) C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates Vikas Bhawan Chartered Accountants, Delhi L-7A (LGF), South Extension [JAO] Part-II New Delhi-49 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BQFPA1756F Assessee Represented by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate, Revenue/Department Represented by : Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 17.09.2025 and 19.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2020-21.

2.

At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that both the orders of Ld. CIT(A) are ex- parte. In the appeal against the assessment order dated 01.09.2022, Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 164 days in filing of appeal and dismissed the same in limine. As regards the appeal against the penalty order u/s 270A, Ld. CIT(A)

6427_6428_DEL_2025_Akansh Aggarwal vs ITO has wrongly observed that no appeal was filed against the assessment order implying that the assessee had accepted the addition. As no compliance was made by the assessee, during appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against penalty also ex-parte. 2.1 In view of above, Ld. AR has requested that both the appeals may be remanded to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.

3.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material placed before us, we are of the view that the delay of 164 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 01.09.2022, deserves to be condoned in the light of explanation submitted by the assessee.

4.

Accordingly, we restore back both the appeals to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28 -01-2026.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →