JASPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD1(1)(2) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against an assessment order and a penalty order with delays of 217 and 38 days, respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed these appeals due to the delays. The assessee contended that the notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, making him unaware of the proceedings.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delays, citing the principle that delays with sufficient cause should be viewed liberally. It remanded the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment and set aside the penalty order, allowing fresh penalty proceedings if necessary after the new assessment.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of significant delays in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the validity of an ex-parte assessment and subsequent penalty when the assessee claimed lack of notice.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 1444B, Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
1 ITA Nos. 268 & 269/DDN/2025 Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 268/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) ITA No. 269/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Jaspal Singh Vs Income Tax officer Near Times World School, Ward 1(1) (2) Bhimawala, Chiranjipur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Vikasnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: EYXPS2226H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. PankajGoel, CA Revenue by Sh. Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders
of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal
Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 08/12/2025 for
the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the
First Appeal by confirming the Assessment Order and the order of
penalty respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be
passed on 27/02/2024 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 1444B of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions.
2 ITA Nos. 268 & 269/DDN/2025 Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO
Consequent to the assessment order an order of penalty also came to be
passed on 26/08/2024 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the
assessment order and order of penalty, Assessee preferred two Appeals
before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 217 days and 38 days respectively
in filing the First Appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned dated
18/12/2025, dismissed the First Appeals without condoning the above
delays in filing the Appeals. The Assessee aggrieved by the orders of the
Ld. CIT(A), preferred the captioned Appeals.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, though there was
a reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the Appeals, the Ld.
CIT(A) dismissed the Appeals on delay in latches, thus sought for
condoning the delay and allowing the present Appeal.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that
there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 217 days
in filing the quantum Appeal and 38 days in filing the penalty appeal
before the Ld. CIT(A), since there is no sufficient cause to condone the
delay, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeals filed by the
Assessee on delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present
Appeals.
3 ITA Nos. 268 & 269/DDN/2025 Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on
record. It was the specific case of the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that
the e-mail id on which the notices were issued by the A.O. was not
belongs and Assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings and
the penalty proceedings and the Assessee came to know regarding
passing of the assessment order and the order of penalty belatedly,
which resulted in filing the Appeals with delay. To substantiate the said
contention, the Assessee has also produced the screen shot of the portal
before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal on
delay in latches.
It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the
cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the
same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient
cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay.
In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.
Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons,
must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the
above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 217 days in
4 ITA Nos. 268 & 269/DDN/2025 Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO
filing the quantum Appeal and 38 days in filing the penalty appeal before
the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessment order has been passed ex-parte, we
remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to pass de-novo
assessment in accordance with law. As we have restored the issue to the
file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment, we set aside the order of penalty
by reserving the liberty to the A.O. to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if
so required after framing the de-novo assessment. Needless to state that
the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 268/DDN/2025
is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Appeal of the Assessee in
ITA No. 269/DDN/2025 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 18 .02.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S
