MANISH CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-59(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the stay application as infructuous. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to give the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation of delay application with an affidavit, after which the appeal on merits would be decided afresh.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a stay application against a demand arising from an assessment order under section 144, which was passed without proper service. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to an alleged 1878-day delay in filing and lack of a condonation application. The assessee contended that they were unaware of the assessment order until their bank account was attached, and filed the appeal shortly after obtaining a certified copy.
What were the issues?
Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) due to alleged non-service of assessment order and proper procedure for condonation of delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
During the course of hearing it transpired that learned CIT(A), NFAC, has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of alleged delay in filing the appeal and observing that assessee has not responded to the notice nor has filed application for condonation of the delay. Thus, we are of the considered view that the appeal can be disposed of on merits instead of considering the stay application only. Learned Authorized Representative also consented to the same.
On appreciating the grounds raised and the order of learned CIT(A) dated 12.01.2024 it comes up that hearing notices were issued by the learned CIT(A), but there was no response from the assessee and further learned CIT(A) observed that there is a delay of 1878 days in filing the appeal, but no application for condonation is filed.
Learned AR has submitted that in fact there was no delay in filing the appeal as assessment order was not served at all and when the bank account of the assessee was attached, the assessee came to know of the assessment order.
Thereafter, on 17.03.2017 the AO was requested to provide certified copy of the SA no. 58/Del/2024 assessment order and thereupon the appeal was filed before learned CIT(A) on 16.04.2017.
On the basis of aforesaid we are of the considered view that assessee is supposed to explain all these facts to learned CIT(A) and seek condonation of the delay, if any.
In the light of aforesaid, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed, being infructuous. The issue on merits is restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to give an opportunity to the assessee to file application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit and after determination of the same as per law the issue will be decided on merits afresh.
Order pronounced in open court on 16.02.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
