ANIL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 54(1) , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5411/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 December 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 154 days, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed them to adjudicate all grounds on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal that was time-barred by 154 days. The delay was due to advice from the previous CA, leading to a wait for notice from the AO. The assessee eventually sought urgent listing and disposal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) had erred in not adjudicating all legal grounds and violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CA, Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR DR
For Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR DR
Hearing: 12.12.2025Pronounced: 12.12.2025

ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

An early hearing petition dated 27.11.2025 has been filed by the assessee in respect of the above captioned appeal. Vide application for hearing, the assessee has requested for urgent listing of the appeal and its early disposal. The petition was fixed for hearing.

2.1 At the threshold, it is noted that this appeal is time-barred by 154 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons of delay. It has been submitted that due to the advice of the earlier CA, the assessee waited for issue of notice for fresh assessment from the Ld. AO. 1 | P a g e ANIL BANSAL VS ITO WARD 54(1), DELHI However, it was subsequently advised by the present tax consultant to file the appeal before the Tribunal as order of Ld. CIT(A) was erroneous.

2.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause has been demonstrated for belated filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the delay of 154 days is, hereby, condoned.

3.

At the outset, both the parties have consented for regular hearing of the appeal before us.

4.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against ex-parte order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) dated 31.03.2022 wherein several legal and factual grounds were raised. Vide order dated 03.01.2025, the Ld. CIT(A) set-aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. AO with directions for making de novo assessment. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal grounds including that relating to non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Moreover, no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee by him before deciding the appeal which is against the principles of natural justice.

4.2 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate all the grounds on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Accordingly, the early hearing petition is rendered infructuous and the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12 -12-2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →