SH. AJAY BHARGAVA,ROORKEE vs. ITO, W-1(3)(40, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 113/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 September 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it afresh after hearing the assessee, including the issue of delay condonation. The assessee was also directed to participate in the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on grounds of delay and latches without a proper hearing. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after issuing only one notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on delay without affording a proper hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Hearing: 10/09/2025Pronounced: 26/09/2025

(A.Y 2021-22) Ajay Bhargava V ITO Purwawali, Railway Road, s Ward-1(3) Ganeshpur, Roorkee, Utarakhand 16, Civil Lines, PAN: ACCPB1138J Roorkee, Utttarakhand, Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CA Revenue by Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

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 21/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, a rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 27/05/2024 by raising demand of Rs. 3,50,230/-. As against the order dated 27/05/2024, Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/11/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on delay in latches, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not heard the Assessee before passing the order impugned, which is in violation of principals of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee has very good ground to condone the delay as well as the Appeal of the Assessee is meritorious, therefore, sought for allowing the present Appeal.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 514 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeal on delay in latches has not heard the Assessee. As could be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), only one notice has been issued on 06/11/2024 by fixing the date of hearingon 13/11/2024 and the order the impugned order came to be passed ex-parte by dismissing the appeal for delay in latches on 21/11/2024. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we restore the first appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeal afresh after hearing the Assessee including the issue of condonation of delay. The Assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →