Ranjeet Singh, Bulandshahr V. ITO WARD - 3(3), Bulandshahr

ITA 9629/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5440 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 9629/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ranjeet Singh, S/o Tejpal Singh, Vill. Bhootgarhi, Post Firozpur, Tehsil Khurja, Bulandsharhr, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. CJJPS7599L Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 20.07.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 09.09.2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in treating the Appeal as non-est being defective without considering the grounds raised by the Appellant on merits. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous, unjust and contrary to the facts of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) erred in holding that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 249(4) of the I.T. Act. Page | 2 4. The learned Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) ought to have provided further opportunity to make payment of tax on the admitted income before deciding the appeal.” 3. The adjournment sought by the assessee has been rejected. 4. On going to the record, we find that there has been a delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that two medical certificates filed by the assessee are primarily not verifiable and even if considered to be genuine there has been a further considerable delay. 5. Since, the appeal of the assessee has been summarily dismissed, we hereby direct that the reasons for delay shall be considered de novo, followed by a speaking order on merits of the case. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/07/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20/07/2022 *Ajay Kumar Keot, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR