DEEPAK BALHA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(4), GURGAON
ITANos.2336 to 2338/Del/2025
DEEPAK BALHA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 2336 to 2338/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16
DEEPAK BALHA
H.No.629, Sector-21,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
PAN No.AEFPB9540K
बनाम
Vs.
ITO,
Ward-1(4),
Gurgaon, Haryana.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by Shri Amol Sinha, Adv.
Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
15.09.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 17.09.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
These three appeals are filed by the Assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the appeals are filed with a delay of 30 days. Ld. Counsel referring to application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals
ITANos.2336 to 2338/Del/2025
DEEPAK BALHA submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal has been caused due to the fact that the assessee herein had a severe pain in lower spine which obstructed in movements and he was advised
10 days bed rest due to which he could not proceed with the filing of the appeal in time. Ld. Counsel submitted that the medical certificate of the Doctor dated 09.03.2025 is also attached along with the application seeking condonation of delay.
3. Heard rival submissions. On hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and going through the petition for condonation of delay along with the Doctor certificate enclosed the delay in filing of 30
days has been explained by the assessee and therefore the same is condoned. Coming to the merits of the additions Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex parte for non prosecution by the assessee.
Ld.
Counsel submitted that the Authorized
Representative (AR) of the assessee did not inform the assessee about the hearings and the assessee could not furnish necessary documents required by the Ld. CIT(Appeals).
4. Heard rival submissions, perused the order of the Ld.
CIT(Appeals). On perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) it is observed that basically all these appeals were dismissed for want of ITANos.2336 to 2338/Del/2025
DEEPAK BALHA prosecution. In the interest of justice, these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file delay in condonation of petition before Ld. CIT(Appeals) explaining the delay and the Ld.
CIT(A) shall consider the delay condonation petition in accordance with law and decide after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
5. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2025 (M BALAGANESH) (C.N. PRASAD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 17.09.2025
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.