RUPESH SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 29/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 March 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 50-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to participate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an assessment order for AY 2020-21 was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 50-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the ill health of the previous counsel and lack of awareness of departmental proceedings. The ITAT considered these reasons.

What were the issues?

The key legal issues were the condonation of a 50-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) and the need for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a fair hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Kochhar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr
Hearing: 10.03.2026Pronounced: 10.03.2026

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

1.

The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 23.09.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 06.01.20225 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

From the perusal of the appellate order, it is found that ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as it was filed delay by 50 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation petition was that due to ill health of the previous counsel, delay was occurred in searching and appointing new counsel. It is further claimed that assessee is unaware of any communication, notice and the proceedings initiated by the Department. Thus, due to these reasons, the appeal was filed delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) by 50 days. The reason being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. It is further observed that despite of several notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

Under these circumstances, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay has sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore the same is hereby condoned. Regarding merits of the appeal, it is observed AO has not made any compliance before the lower authorities. In the light of these facts and as a principle of the natural justice, one more opportunity is given to the assessee and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with direction to pass the assessment order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in proceedings before the AO. With these directions, the case is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →