AJAY SOOD,THE JEWWLS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 433/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

Despite acknowledging the assessee's negligence and non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity based on the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was admitted and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to diligently present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2013-14 against a CIT(A) order that confirmed the AO's disallowance of certain losses, stemming from an assessment under section 143(3). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance during the appellate proceedings, and the current appeal before the ITAT also had a 35-day delay, for which condonation was sought.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the case warrants remand to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, especially given the assessee's prior non-compliance during appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Hearing: 16.02.2026Pronounced: 18.02.2026

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC dated 16-01-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) on 22-02-2016. The registry has noted delay of 35 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. Counsel. The Ld. Sr. Counsel also pleaded for restoration of appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee failed to make any representation therein. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO disallowed certain loss as claimed by the assessee. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, it remained non-compliant during appellate proceeding which is evident from para-4 of the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and Ld. CIT(A is directed to adjudicate de novo. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th February, 2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →