DHANANJAY GIRI,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 110/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned an 18-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. It acknowledged potential communication gaps in faceless hearings and directed the assessee to present their case with three effective opportunities.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A)/NFAC had upheld the addition, noting that the assessee failed to submit a rejoinder to the Assessing Officer's remand report during the faceless assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of an addition made under Section 68 due to the assessee's failure to respond to a remand report in a faceless assessment, raising concerns about communication gaps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

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, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074296889(1), dated 10.03.2025, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 18 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground raised herein directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action, inter alia, making section 68 addition(s) in their respective findings, we note from a perusal of the case records at page 41 para 7.8.4 that he had been requested to submit the rejoinder to the Assessing Officer’s remand report coming on 18.07.2024 which remained uncompiled with at his behest.

4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that possibility of communication gaps in such an instance involving a newly introduced faceless hearing could not be altogether denied. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →