JAYANTHY VENKATA RAMAMURTHY ,GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR V. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR

ITA 5497/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was initially delayed due to an accident involving the assessee's counsel, for which a condonation of delay was sought and granted. The primary contention in the appeal was the exparte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the subsequent non-speaking order by the CIT(A), which did not address the merits or jurisdictional issues of the case. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed these issues and thus remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785487 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELESH KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 5497/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), D-68, Sector-40, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Noida (PAN: ADAPJ2155L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076308041(1), order dated 20.05.2025. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith supporting affidavit for Condonation of Delay stating therein that the delay was occurred due to accident of the assessee’s counsel which resulted, the filing of belated appeal. Hence, it was requested to condone the disputed delay before the this Tribunal. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable reason has been Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute and proceeded further. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that AO has passed the exparte assessment order and Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and also not decided the same on merit issue as well as on jurisdictional issue. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the issues in dispute relating to merit as well as jurisdictional viz reopening u/s. 148 of the Act, afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the relevant documents and evidences. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.10.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Date : 27-10-2025 SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "