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

1 At the threshold, it is noted that this appeal is time-barred by 154 days. 2 | P a g e

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.

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

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.

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. 3 | P a g e