Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first appellate authority had also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. Since both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment, with a direction for the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded for de-novo assessment due to ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
(A.Y 2021-22) Aash Mohd Vs. ITO House No. B-19, UGF, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre, PanchsheelVihar, Malviya New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi PAN: ATJPM6306K Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 11/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.
There is a delay of 95 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application contending that “the Appellant had engaged a Chartered Accountant for handling his tax matters, including filing of the appeal against the said assessment order. He was under the genuine impression that the said CA had duly filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit. However, he later discovered, upon personal follow- and internal review, that the appeal had not been filed at all. Upon becoming aware of this advertent lapse, the appellant immediately took steps to file the appeal at the earliest.”Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.
The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.
Heard and perused. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay by relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the delay of 95days in filing the present Appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that, an ex-parte assessment order dated 20/12/2022 came to be passed u/s 144 read with Section144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 11/11/2024.
As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
7. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.