BIJENDER SINGH,ROHTAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2799/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 December 2025AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the delay included the corona period and that while the reasons for non-receipt of notices might not be acceptable, the assessee deserved adjudication on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for a denovo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 750 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, citing lack of bonafide reasons and negligence. The Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficient to dismiss the appeal outright, or if the assessee deserved a hearing on merits. The issue of denovo assessment was also considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.11.2025

Order

: 29.12.2025 ORDER

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 23.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and also no adjournment application was filed. We proceeded to adjudicate the issue with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing, it was observed that that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) with a delay of 750 days and the ld. CIT (A) observed that the reasons submitted by the assessee are not bonafide so as to form sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 750 days and further observed that the assessee failed to establish that the inordinate delay of 750 days in filing the appeal is not attributable to negligence. Accordingly, ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. We further observed that the Assessing Officer has passed the order ex-parte u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

4.

Ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the Revenue and perused the material on record. Upon careful consideration, we observe that the delay of filing the appeal before ld. CIT (A) includes the period of corona. The reasons submitted by the assessee for not receipt of notices during the periods may not be acceptable but the assessee deserves a proper adjudication on the merits also. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter requires denovo assessment. Therefore, we remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →