SANTRAM ,DEHRADUN V. ITO, DEHRADUN

ITA 57/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Santram against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which were passed ex-parte. Santram contended that he was not served the notices directly, leading to non-compliance and the passing of ex-parte orders. The Tribunal found merit in Santram's argument regarding the non-service of notices and the lack of opportunity to present his case, which justified the condonation of the significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal directed a de-novo assessment, ensuring that Santram would have the opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707278 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2025
• 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: RAJEEV SAHANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 57/DDN/2025 Santram Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “DEHRADUN” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 57/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Sh. Santram Near Subhash Chandra Bose Academy, Nathuwala, 248001, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: DEMPS4349P Vs ITO Ward 1(2) (3), Dehradun Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajeev Sahani, CA Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 20/10/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 458 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee and the same have been served on the lawyers e-mail id, which resulted in non-compliance as well as passing of the ex-parte orders by the Lower Authorities. The Assessee has also claimed that he is not a computer literate and came to know about the passing of the order impugned only when notice of 2 ITA No. 57/DDN/2025 Santram Vs. ITO penalty were served physically. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee contended that the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee and the same have been served on the lawyers e- mail id, which resulted in non-compliance as well as passing of the ex- parte orders by the Lower Authorities. The Assessee has also claimed that he is not a computer literate and came to know about the passing of the order impugned only when notice of penalty were served physically. 5. 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 3 ITA No. 57/DDN/2025 Santram Vs. ITO substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 458 days in filing the present Appeal. 6. Facts in brief are that, an ex-parte assessment order came to be passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 20/10/2023 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 7. The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo 4 ITA No. 57/DDN/2025 Santram Vs. ITO assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail. 9. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th July , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 09 .07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 57/DDN/2025 Santram Vs. ITO "