ANKIT NAUTIYAL,DEHRADUN V. ITO, DEHRADUN

ITA 197/DDN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ankit Nautiyal, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The initial appeal to the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre was dismissed, leading to the current appeal. The appellant faced a significant delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the lack of communication and representation at earlier stages, which was later condoned by the Tribunal upon the condition of a monetary deposit to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed without the appellant's participation, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707062 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SAHNI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 197/DDN/2024 Ankit Nautiyal Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHIBENCH: “DEHRADUN” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 197/DDN/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Ankit Nautiyal 134, Lane No. 2, Ajabpur Kalan, 248001, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: AOKPA5090C Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1)(3) Income Tax Department Subhash Road, Dehradun Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajeev Sahni, CA Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 26/05/2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain addition. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 26/05/2023vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. There is a delay of 472 days in filing the present appeal. An application has been filed by the Assessee contending that the 2 ITA No. 197/DDN/2024 Ankit Nautiyal Vs. ITO Assessee’s representative has not made any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) even though he has been instructed to do so. Further contended that even the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been communicated to the Assessee on time and the Assessee came to know about passing of the order impugned only when the notice for levy of penalty was served on him. Thus, sought for condoning the delay. 4. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay mentioned supra, delay of 472 days in filing the present appeal is condoned subject to the Assessee depositing a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the assessment order as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) have been passed in violation of principals of natural justice. The Assessee is having very good case on merit, therefore, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee has not appeared before the lower authorities, therefore, the authorities below have rightly passed the respective orders which requires no interference. Therefore, sought for dismissals of the Appeal. 3 ITA No. 197/DDN/2024 Ankit Nautiyal Vs. ITO 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. Considering the fact that the assessment order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has also not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de- novo assessment. The Assessee is at the liberty to produce any/all documents in support of his claim and A.O. shall verify the documents and frame the assessment order afresh. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th July , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 09.07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 ITA No. 197/DDN/2024 Ankit Nautiyal Vs. ITO "