RUPESH SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.29/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Rupesh Singh vs DCIT Old Post Office Road Dehradun Banjarawala, Kedarwala Uttarakhand Ajabpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand PAN-BCFPS3008C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Prashant Kochhar, CA Respondent by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : 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.
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
ITA No. 29/DDN/2026
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).
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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Page | 2
ITA No. 29/DDN/2026
Date- 12.03.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*
