RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN V. ITO, DEHRADUN

ITA 136/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the assessee, Rishabh Dev, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed both the quantum and penalty appeals due to a significant delay in filing. The appeals were initially dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the substantive issues. The assessee argued that the delay was caused by the incarceration of his father, which prevented timely compliance with notices from the Income Tax Officer, leading to ex-parte assessments and penalties. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the lack of direct service of notices to the appellant, and thus decided to remand the case for a fresh evaluation on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776943 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2025
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. S. RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ GOEL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,DEHRADUN (DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB’ DEHRADUN) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 134/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 133/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 135/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 136/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Rishabh Dev 215/135, Mohini Road, Dehradun-248001 PAN: CVTPM9295H Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. PankajGoel, Adv. Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee challenging the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A) for short), dated 16.06.2025 and 17.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2017- 18, wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismiss the quantum appeal and also appeals filed challenging the penalty orders passed by the A.O. 2. Brief facts of the case are that,an assessment order has been framed against the assessee u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and passed order of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d), u/s 271B and Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 133 to 136/Del/2025 Rishabh Dev u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act which were called in question by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) with delay of 1386 days in all the appeals. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay in latches vide impugned orders dated 16.06.2025 (quantum appeal) and 17.06.2025 (penalty appeals), which are called in question before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as the father of the assessee was lodged in jail,therefore no compliance of the notices issued by the A.O. could be made and the notices were issued to the jail Superintendent which resulted in passing the ex-parte assessment order as well as order of penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned and further prayed for restoring the first appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeals on merits. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR relying on the orders of the lower authorities, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. As could be seen from the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee contended that his father waslodged in jail and the notices were issued to Superintendent of Police, further contended Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 133 to 136/Del/2025 Rishabh Dev that no notice has been served on the appellant. Thus, it is clear that the ex-parte orders have been passed by the AO without serving the notice to the appellant. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1386 days in filing the first appeals and remand the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say, assessee shall be provided with opportunities of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 134, 133, 135, & 136/DDN/2025 of the assessee arepartly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on September, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 17 .09.2025 Subodh, Sr.P.S/ R.N,Sr. PS* Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 133 to 136/Del/2025 Rishabh Dev Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "