MANOJ KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6386/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done considering potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and in the larger interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear at the hearing and was proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer due to the assessee's non-appearance and alleged communication gaps, and whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 25.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Coimbatore’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1075107822(1), dated 27.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 131 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings; and; therefore, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.

3.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →