ANIL DALAL,ROHTAK V. ITO WARD 3, ROHTAK

ITA 2402/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Dalal, the appellant, contesting an ex parte order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The AO's order was challenged due to the alleged non-service of a notice under section 148, which the appellant claimed led to his inability to participate in the reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable due to a delay of 425 days in filing, which the Tribunal later condoned, directing a fresh examination of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829789 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: UMANG SAHAI; VAIBHAV AGARWAL; PASSING A SPEAKING
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2402/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Anil Dalal, VS. ITO, Ward 3, C/o Umang Sahai Aggarwal, Aayakar Bhawan, Flat No. 505, Maitri Apartment, Near Mansarovar Park, Sector-09, Rohini, Rohtak. Delhi – 110 085 (PAN: AJRPD7577K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Umang Sahai, Adv. & Sh. Vaibhav Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 12.01.2026 ORDER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10264715 dated 12.2.2025. Assessment was framed by the AO u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2022 relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the records, we find that in this case, AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144B of the Act and there was a delay of 425 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not condone the delay in dispute and dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable and also upheld the addition made by the AO, even without going into the merits of the case. We note that before us, assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein that assessee has never received any notice u/s. 148 of the Act from the AO and prior to the issue of notice u/s. 148, had had changed his office premises Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e and new address was duly updated and correctly mentioned by the assessee in the income tax return filed for AY 20017-18 filed on 26.1.2018 and for AY 2018-19 on 31.3.2019 and the updated address was available in the records of the Income Tax Department, but the AO did not make any effort to send, serve, or verify service of notice under section 148 at new address. It was also stated in the said affidavit that the non-service of the notice u/s. 148 upon the assessee was solely because the AO failed to utilize the updated address available in the system and did not take steps to effect proper service. Therefore, there existed a reasonable cause for non-compliance and due to non-receipt of notice u/s. 148 the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from participating in the reassessment proceedings. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in dispute before the CIT(A), and accordingly, remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by passing a speaking order, for which ld. DR has no objection. However, Assessee is directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings in order to enable the CIT(A) to pass the order, in accordance with law. 3. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.01.2026. SD/- SD/- (RENU JAUHRI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Date: 14.01.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "