MAHESH CHAND,BILASPUR V. ITO WARD-5(2)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

ITA 375/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Chand, the appellant, who contested an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 22.12.2019. The appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 206 days, attributed to administrative oversight. The ITAT, referencing several Supreme Court judgments, found sufficient cause for the delay and admitted the appeal. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had decided the case ex-parte due to the absence of submissions from the assessee, which raised concerns about the proper service of notices. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712628 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC), Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1201, Improvement Trust vs Ujagar Singh reported in 2010 6 SCC 789
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.375/Del/2025 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.375/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mahesh Chand, 5, Mohalla Alamkhani, Greater Noida, Bilaspur, Uttar Pradesh-201131. PAN-AKCPC3238J vs ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Noida-1/11002/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.375/Del/2025 Page | 2 3. The captioned appeal filed delayed by 206 days for which condonation of delay petition is filed wherein it is stated that the assessee is looking after administration and accounts related activities and the order passed on 25.04.2024 was downloaded from the mail. However, the same was got mixed up with the working papers and could not be handed over to the Ld. Counsel for preparation of the appeal. It is only when some amount was recovered from the bank account of the assessee, the fact of non- filing of appeal come to the notice of assessee and accordingly, the assessee immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal which was delayed by 206 days. The assessee thus, requested for condonation of delay by contending that it is a sufficient cause and there is no malafide in filing the appeal delayed. He placed reliance on the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC); Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1201; and Improvement Trust vs Ujagar Singh reported in 2010 6 SCC 789. The application is further supported by an affidavit wherein the facts narrated in condondation petition are re-affirmed by assessee. Accordingly, the prayer is made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently objected for the mission of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.375/Del/2025 Page | 3 5. After considering the facts and the petition of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee should be admitted in the interest of justice. Thus, following the above- mentioned judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same for adjudication. 6. From the perusal of the order of Ld.CIT(A), it is seen that Ld.CIT(A) has provided only two opportunities and the assessee failed to file any submissions and the appeal is decided ex-parte on the basis of material available on record. As only two opportunities were provided and it is not clear whether the notices were sent by ld.CIT(A) were served or not thus, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and remand back to his file to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to appear before Ld.CIT(A) and file all the necessary evidences in support of the grounds of appeal taken in this case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.375/Del/2025 Page | 4 Date:- 29.07.2025 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "