What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding an absence of proper fact-finding at the lower levels and inadequate opportunity for the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The assessee's appeal was filed late due to the death of their Chartered Accountant and lack of knowledge in accessing the online portal. The lower authorities had made additions based on an ex-parte order without adequate fact-finding.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard and whether proper fact-finding was conducted by the lower authorities.

Kapil Kumar Varshney, Sambhal vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR

Hearing: 18.12.2025

आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is time barred by 83 days for which an application has been filed for condoning the said delay as under:

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS: The impugned appellate Order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 26.02.2025, was uploaded on the Income Tax portal. Therefore, the appeal was required to be filed before the Tribunal by 25.04.2025. However, the appeal is being filing today, resulting in a delay of 85 days.

The delay in filing the appeal was due to specific circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Chartered Accountant handling the appeal was suffering from a heart condition, which prevented him from attending the office regularly. Unfortunately, he passed away.

The assessee has not served any physical or email copy of the impugned order. The order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was posted on the portal, but the assessee does not have the knowledge to access the portal.

4. Upon making routine inquiry from the another Ld. CA at Chandausi regarding the status of the appeal, the assessee was informed of the order. In light of this situation, the assessee promptly sought the assistance of the Ld. Advocate at Delhi through Chandausi CA, who advised the immediate filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

5. The delay caused due to a reasonable and sufficient cause. The explanation of the appellant is true and bona fide. It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of substantive justice appeal be kindly taken on record for consideration and adjudication after condoning the delay. Placed for the most favourable consideration. APPELLANT 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

2. This appeal arises from order dated 26.02.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. It is seen that the Ld. AO has passed an ex parteorder through which several additions have been made. The aggrieved assesseeapproached the Ld. CIT(A) where also the Ld. CIT(A) he could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) has gone by the findings given by the Ld. AO and has recorded that the issue of cash deposits were neither explained at the level of AO nor at the level of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the additions made by the AO were confirmed at first appellate stage.

2.1 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the impugned additions.

3. Before us the Ld. AR pleaded that due to improper advice by the assessee’s tax consultant, the matter could not be adequately pursued before the authorities below. It was the submission that the assessee has good evidence in his possession to enable the Ld. AO to take a fair view in the matter. It was prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment, where the assessee would certainly comply to all the notices issued from the office of Ld. AO.

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the submissions of the Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that there is an absence of fact finding at the two stages below. Accordingly, we find it difficult to proceed ahead with the adjudication. In the light of this fact, we are persuaded by ground no.1 of the assessee, regarding having been provided with inadequate opportunity of being heard, and thus, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025

KAPIL KUMAR VARSHNEY,SAMBHAL vs. ITO WARD 2(5), CHANDAUSI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments