SH. AJAY BHARGAVA,ROORKEE V. ITO, W-1(3)(40, ROORKEE

ITA 113/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ajay Bhargava against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre), which dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 514 days in filing. The original rectification order raised a demand of Rs. 3,50,230 under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee argued that the delay should be condoned and that the appeal was meritorious, while the Departmental Representative contended that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The tribunal found that the Assessee was not heard by the Ld. CIT(A) before the dismissal, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773232 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHANLAL JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SAHNI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 113/DDN/2025 Sh. Ajay Bhargava 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. 113/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Ajay Bhargava Purwawali, Railway Road, Ganeshpur, Roorkee, Utarakhand PAN: ACCPB1138J V s ITO Ward-1(3) 16, Civil Lines, Roorkee, Utttarakhand, Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CA Revenue by Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 21/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, a rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 27/05/2024 by raising demand of Rs. 3,50,230/-. As against the order dated 27/05/2024, Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/11/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 113/DDN/2025 Sh. Ajay Bhargava Vs. ITO 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on delay in latches, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not heard the Assessee before passing the order impugned, which is in violation of principals of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee has very good ground to condone the delay as well as the Appeal of the Assessee is meritorious, therefore, sought for allowing the present Appeal. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 514 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeal on delay in latches has not heard the Assessee. As could be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), only one notice has been issued on 06/11/2024 by fixing the date of hearingon 13/11/2024 and the order the impugned order came to be passed ex-parte by dismissing the appeal for delay in latches on 21/11/2024. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we restore the first appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeal afresh after hearing the Assessee including the issue of condonation of delay. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 113/DDN/2025 Sh. Ajay Bhargava Vs. ITO Assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 26.09.2025 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 Printed from counselvise.com "