EAGLE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(2), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1562/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex parte without deciding on merits and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 135 days, due to a misunderstanding about the filing of the appeal by their previous CA. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2017-18, and the first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

Hearing: 08/09/2025Pronounced: 12/09/2025

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 22/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

There is a delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee contending that the assessee was under the impression that the appeal has been filed by their CA on time. However, on verification it was found that no appeal has been filed, therefore, the present appeal filed after changing adviser. Thus, there was delay of 135 days in filing the appeal,

3.

For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 135 days in filing the present is hereby condoned.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that an assessment order came to be passed u/s. 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act (“The Act” for short) on 24.12.2019 by the computation of income of Rs.14,99,41,830/- against the returnedincome of Rs.49,41,830/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.12.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the CIT(A) vide order dated 22.08.2024, dismissed the 1stappeal, which is called in question in the present appeal.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(A) has been passed in violation of natural justice, wherein the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit, therefore, sought for remitting the issue involved in the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehementlysubmitted that, even after ample opportunities,the assessee failedto represent before the CIT(A), therefore, CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal, which requires no interference in the hands of the Tribunal.

Eagle Jewels Vs. ACIT 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the appeal exparte, not decided the grounds of appeal urged by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT(A)and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →