SANDEEP KUMAR GAUTAM,GHAZIABAD V. ITO,WARD- 2(2)(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 1469/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Kumar Gautam, the appellant, contesting an exparte order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, which was later upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in law by confirming the AO's order without considering the merits of the case, as the appellant had not deliberately ignored the notices but was unaware due to a non-functioning email ID. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's plea for a fresh hearing and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669431 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHESH SINHA; PASSING A NON SPEAKING
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1469/Del/2025 (Asstt. Year : 2018-19) Sandeep Kumar Gautam, VS. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad House No. 921, Mange Ram Jatan House, Ghaziabad (PAN: AMBPG5029J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an exparte order without considering that in this case, there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the appellate to, not to, reply to the notices of hearing. 2 | P a g e 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in impliedly confirming the order of the AO by making the addition of Rs. 3,39,52,260/-. 2. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the exparte order, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order, even without going into the merits of the case. It was further submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and due to non-functioning of email id, the assessee was not aware of the notices or order passed by the department on the income tax portal, thus, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above, it was pleaded that one opportunity may be granted to the assessee by remitting back the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, for which Ld. DR did not controvert. 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusing the records and after hearing both the sides, we find reasonable cause has been attributed for filing the belated appeal before this Tribunal, hence, we condone the delay of 11 days. 4. Upon careful consideration, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the issues require to be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. Assesse is directed to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 | P a g e 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.06.2025. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "