GULSHAN KUMAR,DELHI V. ITO WARD- 36(3), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2979/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Gulshan Kumar, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-submission of grounds of appeal and lack of response to notices. The assessee argued that the dismissal was due to technical issues with the Income-tax e-Filing Portal, which prevented access to the CIT(A)'s order and led to a delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the technical issues and improper notice, leading to the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 22846 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN GULATI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 250

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH, NAVEEN CHANDRA ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA No.2979/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gulshan Kumar A-47, Ground Floor, Block A, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, NewDelhi-110052 PAN No.ATZPK4419R Vs. ITO Ward- 36 (3) Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Nitin Gulati, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 04/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 12/02/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”] vide order dated 31.10.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 arising out of the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2 2. From records it is found that the appeal was filed a delay of 168 days in this regard assessee filed condonation application and in his application he stated that the delay was due to non receipt of CIT(A)’s order in time which led to an unavoidable delay in filing the present appeal. Further he submitted that the delay is not due to any negligence or willful default and accordingly prayed of condone the delay. 3. In view of the above in the interest of justice we condone the delay and allowed the condonation application filed by the assessee. But the registry is not mentioned the delay in appeal anywhere in appeal folder. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the appellant has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A)], which was registered as Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-12/10345/2019-20, challenging the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That the CT(A) passed an order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal vide order dated 31.10.2023, without considering the merits of the case and submissions made during the assessment stage. 3 3. That the appellant was unable access and download the CIT(A) order due to persistent technical issues on the Income-tax e-Filing Portal, despite multiple attempts. 4. That multiple grievances were filed with the Income Tax Department regarding the inability to download the order, details of which are as follows : i. Grievance No.16585581 (04-APR-2024): Order not accessible. ii. Grievance No. 16633669 (12 APR 2024) Delay in filing appeal due to portal issues. iii. Grievance No. 16658385 (17 APR 2024) No response despite multiple complaints 5. That the appellant could not obtain a copy of the CIT(A) order in time, which led to an unavoidable delay in filing the present appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. The delay was purely due to circumstances beyond the appellant’s control and not due to any negligence or willful default. 6. That the delay in filing this appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to genuine reasons, and the appellant has always been diligent in pursuing legal remedies. 7. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that substantial justice must prevail 4 over technical considerations, and a liberal approach should be adopted while condoning the delay. 8. That in view of the above, the appellant prays that het Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to condone the delay of168 Days in filing the present appeal and allow it heard on merits, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A) in which the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “1.2. The notices of hearing were issued on 21.01.2021, 31.07.2023 and 05.10.2023 under section 250 of the Act, requesting the appellant to furnish written submissions on ITBA module on or before 05.02.2021, 07.08.2023 and 20.10.2023 respectively. However, in response to the notices issued, the appellant has not filed any written submissions nor filed any request for adjournment, till date. Hence, this appeal is disposed off after considering the facts on record and position of law on the issue in the succeeding paras. 1.3 On going through the Form 35 filed by the appellant, it is found that the appellant has not mentioned grounds of appeals in form 35, in that regard deficiency letters were issued on 31.12.2020 and 13.01.2021 specifically asking to provide grounds of appeal. However, No response or submission has filed or submitted in this regard by the 5 appellant. In view of the above, this appeal is being treated as non-maintainable. Thus, In the result this appeal is disposed off as dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee by observing that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite granted several opportunities. He submitted that notices for hearing were sent at the wrong email address i.e. on [e-mail]. However, the correct e-mail address is [e-mail]. Therefore, the assessee could not appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. DR for the revenue objected to the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that assessee has not utilized several opportunities granted by the ld. CIT(A). 9. We deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee after service of proper notice. 6 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:-12.02.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "