AMANDEEP SINGH S/O SH KIRPAL SINGH,HARYANA vs. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ITO WARD-1, KARNAL

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण
धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली
श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.7147/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18)
Amandeep Singh,
Jatton Gate, Jattan Mohlla, Karnal,
Haryana 132001
PAN: ECEPS-7045-M

...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,
Karnal, Haryana 132001

..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, Chartered Accountant
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing

:
16/12/2025

घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
:
16/12/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’]
dated 07.10.2024, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 311 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 311 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

2
3. Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. He submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A).
4. Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently supporting the orders of the lower authorities submitted that the assessee did no furnish any documentary evidences before the AO and failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the CIT(A).
5. Both sides heard. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely for want of prosecution and has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits. It is a well settled law that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. The First Appellate Authority is statutorily required to adjudicate the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order dealing with each ground of appeal raised by the assessee. The obligation on CIT(A) to dispose of appeal on merits flow from the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is unsustainable.
Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity of making submissions hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.
6. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.

3
7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 16th day of December,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 29/12/2025

NV/-
प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant ,
2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली
5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.