DEEPAK BALHA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(4), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2337/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 September 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the medical certificate. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte for non-prosecution, as the assessee's AR failed to inform the assessee about hearings. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals against orders of the CIT(A)-NFAC for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. The appeals were filed with a delay of 30 days, attributed to the assessee's severe back pain and advised bed rest.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned, and if the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) requires the appeal to be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.09.2025

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

1.

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 2

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →