JITENDER CHAINRAJ JAIN,BANGALORE , KARNATAKA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(2) DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 6849/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jitender Chainraj Jain, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the year 2012-13 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(2), New Delhi. The primary contention was the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, which was initially dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to a 114-day delay. The assessee argued that the delay was not intentional and was only aware of the assessment order when his bank account was attached in April 2020. The ITAT, considering the principles of natural justice and the circumstances presented, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, instructing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790822 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDESH NAGARAJ GADDI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”, NEW DEALHI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6849/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) (Physical hearing) Jitender Chainraj Jain, Flat No.501, V2 Rishi Ratna Apartment, Vittal Nagar, Chamrajpet, Bangalore-560078 PAN-AHFPJ6089C Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(2), New Delhi-110002 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA Revenue by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Institution of appeal 29.10.2025 Date of hearing 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2 Pune, dated 29.08.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that there was a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that the assessee has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine /unadmitted. The ld. AR further submits assessment was also completed under section-144. In fact, no notice was received to the assessee during assessment. The assessee came to know only in the month of April, 2020, when the bank account of the assessee was freezed/attached. The assessee collected copy Printed from counselvise.com ITA No6849/Mum/2025 Jitender Chainraj Jain 2 of assessment order and filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in May 2020. The learned AR for the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal was not deliberate or intentional also prayed for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given to the assessee to contest the case on merit. The AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future and certainly will make compliance. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The learned DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee has not made any compliance despite sufficient opportunity granted by the Assessing Officer. The appeals was not filed within time. Learned CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which may be upheld. 4. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that first appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by taking view that there is a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. Before me, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that first appeal was filed soon after coming to know that the assessment order is passed. Assessment order came to the notice of assessee when his bank account was freezed/attached. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that substantial right of the assessee is involved in the present appeal. The delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) is not intentional, thus, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No6849/Mum/2025 Jitender Chainraj Jain 3 5. Now adverting to the merits of the case. I find in the assessment order dated 19.12.2019. The learned CiT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. Considering the principal of natural justice and the fact that the assessee is interested in pursuing his appeal on merit and ready to make compliance in time before the lower authorities. Hence, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order, the learned CIT(A) shall allow the fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future for making timely compliance. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 01st December, 2025. Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated: 01.12.2025 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, New Delhi; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "