Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Rajesh Karyana Store, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. There was a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to the order being sent to a spam folder and an email ID of a son residing abroad. The assessee argued that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte, without considering the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided. It noted that the case had not been discussed on its merits by the lower authorities due to the ex-parte nature of the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to be heard and present submissions.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings due to an unsigned notice under Section 148 and insufficient time granted for reply under Section 148A(b), along with the procedural fairness concerning ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
Section 148, Section 148A(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year:
2015-16.
2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:
“1) That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 is unsigned and therefore invalid.
2) That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the notice issued under section 148A(b) is illegal, void and liable to be quashed as the time granted to the appellant for furnishing reply was less than the statutory minimum period prescribed under the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to provide the mandatory minimum period of seven days (or as prescribed under the proviso to section 148A(b))”
3. The registry has pointed out the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by 117 days, the counsel of the assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit which is reproduced as under:
“1. That I was the partner of the M/s Rajesh Karyana Store having PAN AAHFR5945G
That I have filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25.06.2025 against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
That the present appeal was required to be filed on or before 28th February, 2025. However, there has been a delay of 117 days in filing the same due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.
4. The impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) was communicated only through email, which inadvertently got filtered into the "spam" folder of the registered email account and, consequently, remained
unnoticed and also the same is being sent on the mail id of the son of the partner i.e ayushmahajan065@gmail.com who was residing outside India during the relevant period, and therefore the email remained unattended.
5. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide reason beyond my control.
6. That in the interest of substantial justice and natural justice, it is humbly prayed that the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.”
Keeping in view, issues mentioned in the affidavit, the delay is hereby condoned.
The ld. D.R. did not have any objection in the condonation of delay.
At the very outset, the counsel of the assessee brought before the bench during proceedings before us that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is an ex-parte order and the ld. CIT(A) has also passed his appellate order as an ex-parte order. The counsel, therefore, argued that the case has not been discussed or assessed on merit before the lower authorities.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel regarding this order being an ex-parte order both before the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings as well as before the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings.
Thus, we find that the issues in this case have not been discussed on merit after due consideration of assessee’s submission.
Therefore, keeping in view, the element of natural justice with the assessee, we are inclined to remand this appeal back to the file of the A.O. for passing an order de-novo after giving adequate opportunities to the assessee of being heard as well as to allow him to file written submissions if any. The assessee will have all the legal issues before him. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the department for completion of proceedings before authorities below.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court as on 19.02.2026