PRADEEP YADAV,AGRA vs. WARD 2(1)(2), AGRA/, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 470/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the ex parte assessment and the assessee's lack of awareness. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed due to a delay of 583 days. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the assessment order as it was communicated to their counsel's email and the assessment was ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not condoning the significant delay in filing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case, especially when the assessment was ex parte and the assessee claimed lack of knowledge.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

At the time of hearing, it is brought to my notice that learned CIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay of 583 days on the basis that the assessee has not demonstrated sufficient cause for such huge delay, by relying on several decisions and, therefore, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee.

3.

At the time of hearing, learned AR submitted that the email Id, which was used to communicate the assessment order, was of the counsel who was representing the assessee. The assessee was not aware of the assessment order issued. Since the assessment order passed is not in the knowledge of the assessee, it is not intentional on his part not to file the above said appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) within the period of limitation. Further, it was submitted that the assessment order passed is also ex parte order. Therefore, the mistake of the counsel cannot be the reason to penalize the assessee. However, learned CIT(Appeals) preferred not to condone the delay.

4.

On the other hand, learned DR objected to the submissions of the assessee and submitted that the delay is substantial.

5.

Considered the rival submissions and the material available on records.

6.

We observe that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is ex parte and the counsel of the assessee neither communicate the date nor appeared in assessment proceedings. From the submissions of the counsel of the assessee it is clearly indicated that the assessee was not aware of the fact that such order was passed by the authority. Further, I observe that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground without adjudicating the merits of the case.

Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and for the sake of overall justice, we remit the matter back 2 | P a g e to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the issue on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →