ANNU KUMAR,ROORKEE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DERHADUN

ITA 79/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Annu Kumar, the appellant, who contested the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment for the year 2020-21. The initial assessment order was passed ex-parte under sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to certain additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing, which was not condoned. The appellant argued that the delay was due to not being aware of the proceedings, as the notice was sent to a former accountant. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasized the need to prioritize substantial justice over procedural technicalities and thus condoned the delay and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707223 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PAVITRA ARORA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 79/DDN/2025 Annu Kumar Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘DEHRADUN/SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 79/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Annu Kumar C/o. Hemant Arora & Co. LLP 354-B, 30 Civil Lines, Roorkee, Uttarakhand PAN: BTTPK3087N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Roorkee Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Pavitra Arora, CA Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: 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 27/02/2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed for delay in latches on27/02/2025 vide order 2 ITA No. 79/DDN/2025 Annu Kumar Vs. ITO impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27/02/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in not condoning the delay of 348 days in filing the Appeal, thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law. Further submitted that there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and there was no sufficient cause to condone the same accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal.Accordingly, relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) 3 ITA No. 79/DDN/2025 Annu Kumar Vs. ITO dismissed the Appeal in delay in latches of 348 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee filed letter for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that he did not know about the ongoing assessment proceedings as the show cause notice send via email was of accountant who had left the job and that the appellant did not receive the order until he received recovery notice dated 04.08.2023 from ITO Dehradun. The Ld. CIT(A) held that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 348 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since, the assessment order is also passed ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing 4 ITA No. 79/DDN/2025 Annu Kumar Vs. ITO the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail. 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 10TH July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 10 .07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 79/DDN/2025 Annu Kumar Vs. ITO "