ANIL DALAL,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD 3, ROHTAK
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the non-service of notice under section 148, as the AO failed to use the updated address available. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as non-maintainable due to a 425-day delay. The AO had passed an ex-parte order under section 144B. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notice under section 148, attributing it to the AO's failure to use the updated address.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from participating in reassessment proceedings due to non-service of notice u/s 148.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
ORDER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10264715 dated 12.2.2025. Assessment was framed by the AO u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2022 relating to assessment year 2013-14.
After hearing rival contentions and perusing the records, we find that in this case, AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144B of the Act and there was a delay of 425 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not condone the delay in dispute and dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable and also upheld the addition made by the AO, even without going into the merits of the case. We note that before us, assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein that assessee has never received any notice u/s. 148 of the Act from the AO and prior to the issue of notice u/s. 148, had had changed his office premises and new address was duly updated and correctly mentioned by the assessee in the income tax return filed for AY 20017-18 filed on 26.1.2018 and for AY 2018-19 on 31.3.2019 and the updated address was available in the records of the Income Tax Department, but the AO did not make any effort to send, serve, or verify service of notice under section 148 at new address. It was also stated in the said affidavit that the non-service of the notice u/s. 148 upon the assessee was solely because the AO failed to utilize the updated address available in the system and did not take steps to effect proper service. Therefore, there existed a reasonable cause for non-compliance and due to non-receipt of notice u/s. 148 the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from participating in the reassessment proceedings. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in dispute before the CIT(A), and accordingly, remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by passing a speaking order, for which ld. DR has no objection. However, Assessee is directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings in order to enable the CIT(A) to pass the order, in accordance with law.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.01.2026.
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026