AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, HATHRAS
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 230/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19
Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Near Patwari Mandir, Navipur Ward 4(3)(4), Hathras. Road, Hathras (UP). PAN :BHMPA6438C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Deepak Maheshwari, Advocate Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.09.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10296867 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay.
ITA No.230/Agr/2025
Brief facts state that the assessee did not file return of income for
the assessment year 2018-19. Department had an information that the
assessee received credit entries of Rs.1,48,01,612/- including cash
deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in his bank account with State Bank of India,
Hathras. That apart the assessee had also withdrawn huge cash
amounting to Rs.2,13,70,000/- from his bank account with HDFC Bank,
which according to the Assessing Officer, would have been sourced out
of huge deposits made in the said bank account, which remained
unexplained. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the
assessee, which remained un-responded. Learned Assessing Officer
carried out best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and assessed
total income of Rs.3,16,72,471/-.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.
CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of
assessee’s delay condonation prayer.
This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to
others on merits, that the delay of 187 days was caused in filing the first
appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals) due to lack of service of the assessment
order and assessee not being aware of the assessment proceedings
initiated against him, which was passed without proper opportunity of
hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2 | P a g e
ITA No.230/Agr/2025
Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee
and learned DR for revenue.
Learned AR has submitted that the assessee could file first appeal
only on 20.10.2023 against the assessment order dated 17.03.2025 by a
delay of about 187 days. The delay was caused due to non-service of the
assessment order upon the assessee. Assessee’s affidavit is also on
record to this effect.
Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
It transpires from the perusal of record that Ld. Assessing Officer
passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act due to no
submissions on behalf of the assessee. Similarly, first appellate authority
was also compelled to pass impugned order ex parte in limine due to
non-submission on behalf of assessee despite various notices dated
01.11.2023, 06.02.2025 and 18.02.2025. Such an irresponsible conduct
of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, it is well established
principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical
aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause
of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should
ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of
justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any
interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to 3 | P a g e
ITA No.230/Agr/2025
be followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the
appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities
and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the reasons for delay
assigned by the assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals), we deem it just and
appropriate to condone the delay of 187 days caused in filing the first
appeal.
During the course of arguments, the assessee requested to restore
the matter to the ld. Assessing Officer to enable the assessee to make
his submissions. As regards the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority
to admit and decide a time barred appeal on merits without condoning
the delay in filing the same is concerned, the law on the subject is well
settled that unless the delay is condoned, the appeal does not come into
existence legally and in such circumstances, ld. first appellate authority is
wholly without jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal on merits. In this
background of the matter, we do not accede to the assessee’s request to
remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the matter is
remitted back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit,
as we have already condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. We
order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and
cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the
learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. 4 | P a g e
ITA No.230/Agr/2025
Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance
of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for
statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.09.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
5 | P a g e
