RAMA KANT TIWARI,FARIDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

ITA 6229/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Ramakant Tiwari against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The appeals were initially time-barred due to incorrect email notifications. The primary issues in the appeals included the ex parte decision by the NFAC, the imposition of penalties under section 271B for failure to get accounts audited as mandated by section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, and discrepancies in the declared and assessed turnover. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly notified of the proceedings and thus did not have a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829568 (ITAT-NEW DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: D C GARG
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 6229, 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE-PRESIDENT & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6229/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No. 6230/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Kant Tiwari E-701, Hill View Apartments, Plot No. 2, Sector 46, Faridabad Haryana Vs ITO CGO Complex, NH IV, NIT Faridabad Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADKPT8636Q Assessee by : Shri D C Garg, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned two appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.02.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”). 2. At the threshold, it is noted that the Appeals are time-barred by 155 days. Applications for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. It has been submitted therein that the notices issued by the NFAC Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6229, 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad 2 | P a g e as well as the Appellate Tribunal dated 26.02.2025 were not served upon assessee as these were sent on incorrect email id i.e., [e-mail] whereas the correct e-mail id is [e-mail] . The assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order only when the return was to be filed on 02.10.2025 resulting in delay of 155 days. We have heard the rival submissions and are of the considered view that the delay has been caused due to bonafide reasons and the same is, therefore, being condoned. 3. The appeal relates to the assessment made u/s 143(3) and penalty imposed u/s 271B for the same year. These are, therefore, being disposed of vide a common order. 4. Assessee in ITA No. 6230/DEL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 has raised grounds of Appeal are reproduced as below: “1. Learned Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in deciding the appeal ex parte without service of any notice, hence violated principles of natural justice. 2. Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in imposing penalty u/s 2718 without appreciating the fact that turnover of the Appellant id Rs. 1,58,46,000/- which is much below the threshold limit if Rs. 2. 00 crores which mandated to get the accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in determining turnover of Rs. 2,43,59,000/- against declared turnover of Rs. 1,58,46,000/- merely on the basis of cash deposit during the year without assigning any cogent reason. 4. Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) has grossly failed in determining turnover at Rs. 2,43,59,000/- which contradict own finding in determination of turnover at Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6229, 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad 3 | P a g e Rs. 2,30,02,000/- by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment dated 17-10-2019 u/s 143(3). 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, or delete, all or any of the ground before or at the time of hearing this appeal.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income or Rs. 10,62,540/- for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27.12.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s143(3) at an assessed income of Rs. 31,97,160/- after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during demonetization. 5.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of non-compliance to multiple notices during the course of appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that no compliance could be made before Ld. CIT(A) as the notices issued on wrong email id were never received by the assessee. He has further requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to the above said proposition. 7. After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6229, 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad 4 | P a g e 8. ITA No. 6229/DEL/2025 relates to imposition of penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Since the penalty u/s 271B has been imposed after including total cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account to the declared turnover, which is the subject matter of appeal relating to the quantum addition and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal against penalty also ex-parte on account of non-compliance, this order is also restored to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to add, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 -01-2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RENU JAUHRI) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 14.01.2026 Pooja Mittal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "