DESHRAJ,GHAZIABAD V. ITO WARD 2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

MA 131/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by Deshraj, the assessee, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed his appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessee explained that the non-appearance was due to technical issues preventing virtual attendance, despite an adjournment application being filed. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of substantial justice, decided to recall the earlier order and restore the appeal for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848273 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. S. Chennlappa Mudallar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC), Smt. K.K. Shadakshari v. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 378 (Bang), Mahabir Prasad Jalan v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 259 (Cal), ACIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI KANT CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK GUPTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.- 131/Del/2025 Arising Out of ITA No:- 2671/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deshraj s/o Shri Surjee Village: Noor Nagar, Sehani, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ghaziabad- 201001. PAN No: CDXPD7079Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Alok Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM: This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”, for short) Under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) read with Rule 24 of Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 has been filed by the assessee, requesting for recalling of order dated 27.12.2024 in the main appeal i.e. ITA No. 2671/Del/2023 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.- 131/Del/2025 Deshraj Page 2 of 5 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, which was listed for hearing on 19.12.2024. At the time of hearing before us on 19.12.2024, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte and dismissed. 2. The assessee filed an M.A. for recalling the order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal explaining the reasons of non-representation, on the date of hearing. The relevant contents of the application are reproduced as under for easy reference: “ 1. That the Applicant had filed the above-mentioned appeal bearing ITA No. 2671/DEL/2023 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 which was fixed for hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 19.12.2024. 2. That on the said date of hearing, the Applicant / Appellant could not appear before the Hon'ble Tribunal due to technical issues to attend virtually. It is pertinent to note that AR of the assessee has filed an adjournment application via mail dated 18.12.2024. (Copy of mail along with adjournment application is attached as Annexure-A) 3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal, in absence of the Appellant or his representative, was pleased to dismiss the appeal, without rendering a decision on the merits of the case. (Copy of order 27.12.2024 is attached as Annexure-B) 4. That the non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the Applicant. The Applicant submits that it has a bona fide case and is sincerely desirous of prosecuting the appeal on merits. 5. That it is a settled principle of law that where an appeal is dismissed in limine for non-appearance and without a decision on merits, the same constitutes a mistake apparent from record and is liable to be recalled. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents: -CIT v. S. Chennlappa Mudallar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC) -Smt. K.K. Shadakshari v. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 378 (Bang) -Mahabir Prasad Jalan v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 259 (Cal) - ACIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) 6. In view of the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the dismissal of the appeal without hearing and without decision on merits amounts to a mistake apparent from record, warranting recall under section 254(2). Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.- 131/Del/2025 Deshraj Page 3 of 5 7. That the Applicant undertakes to fully cooperate in the future proceedings and requests that the appeal be restored to its original number for disposal on merits. PRAYER In light of the above facts and judicial precedents, the Applicant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly: a) Recall its order dated 27.12.2024 passed in ITA No. 2671 of 2023 and restore the appeal to its original number for hearing on merits; b) Pass such further or other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the non-appearance on the date of hearing was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to technical issues faced in attending the hearing virtually. It was further submitted that an adjournment application dated 18.12.2024 had already been filed through email. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has a bona fide case and was keen to pursue the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Tribunal. However, he did not raise any serious objection for recalling the order of the Tribunal in this case. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the appeal was decided ex-parte and the same was dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause, within the meaning of proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.- 131/Del/2025 Deshraj Page 4 of 5 1963; for non-appearance on 19.12.2024. Accordingly, we are satisfied that assessee had sufficient cause for non-representation, when the assessee’s appeal was listed for hearing on 19.12.2024. Accordingly, we recall the order of the Tribunal dated 27.12.2024 passed in ITA No. 2671/Del/2023 and restore the appeal for adjudication afresh on merits. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing in due course after giving due notice to both the parties. 6. In the result, this M.A filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25/03/2026 Pooja/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "