KAVITA BAJAJ,SAHARANPUR V. ITO WARD 3(2), SAHARANPUR

ITA 4022/DEL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Kavita Bajaj against the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed an assessment order under section 144 dated 31/10/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal as being filed late without justified grounds. The assessee argued that the delay was due to notices being withheld by her son out of personal animosity. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for re-adjudication, noting that the First Appellate Authority had not addressed the merits of the case and only focused on the delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471998 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4022/DEL/2024 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Kavita Bajaj, Vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), H.No. 32, Prem Vatika Mission Compound, Saharanpur Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 247001 (PAN:- ACCPB1169P) [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the Assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 26.6.2024 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 144 dated 31/10/2016 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of just 339 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the notices were served upon the son of the assessee who, on account of personal animosity, did not bring them to the notice of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant learnt of the notices when the recovery for demand was initiated by the Department. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication on its merits and 2 that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR did not pose any serious objection to the proposal. 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 4.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 339 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR BHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "