SMT. MADHU GUPTA,U.S.NAGAR V. PR.CIT, BAREILLY

ITA 136/DDN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Madhu Gupta, the appellant, who contested the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Bareilly, dated 31/03/2021, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 1,181 days, attributed to the assessee's illiteracy and ignorance of tax laws, which was accepted as a sufficient cause for delay by the Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The original assessment for AY 2017-18 was completed on 16/12/2019, and an ex-parte order under section 263 was passed on 20/03/2021 due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case was based on the need for a fair hearing and proper adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831486 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2024
• 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: POONAM SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT KACKER
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 136/DDN/2024 :Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Smt. Madhu Gupta GallaMandi, Sitarganj, U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand-262405 Vs Principal CIT Central Revenue Building Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Line Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADNPG8203B Assessee by: Sh. Prashant Kacker, CA Revenue by: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21 .01.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Bareilly [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] dated 31/03/2021 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 1181 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation contending that the Assessee is an illiterate, does not have the knowledge of the tax law. Further submitted that the Assessee had filed Appeal before the NFAC against the second assessment order, however, came to know that as against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, Appeal has to be filed before the Tribunal and not before the NFAC and the delay caused due to the ignorance of the Assessee on the tax law and procedure, thus sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 136/DDN/2024 Smt. Madhu Gupta 2 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 in the application for condonation of delay, contended that she is an illiterate, does not have the knowledge of the tax law. Further submitted that the Assessee had filed Appeal before the NFAC against the second assessment order, however, came to know that as against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act Appeal has to be filed before the Tribunal and the delay caused due to the ignorance of tax law and procedure. 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 substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1,181 days in filing the present Appeal subject to Assessee depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 136/DDN/2024 Smt. Madhu Gupta 3 6. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was completed on 16/12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) at returned income of Rs. 7,24,450/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS on the issue of cash deposit of during the demonetization period. An ex-parte order u/s 263 of the Act came to be passed on 20/03/2021 by the Ld. PCIT as the Assessee failed to file any reply to the notice issued by the Ld. PCIT. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT dated 20/03/2021, Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order impugned has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, therefore, sought for remanding the issue to the file of the Ld. PCIT for deciding the issue afresh. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. PCIT,sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order impugned, the Ld. PCIT passed ex-parte order u/s 263 of the Act. As the Ld. Assessee's Representative requested for remanding the issue to the file of the Ld. PCIT for fresh adjudication, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 136/DDN/2024 Smt. Madhu Gupta 4 case, we remand the issue to the file of the Ld. PCIT with a direction to pass afresh order u/s 263 of the Act by providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ld. PCIT. 10. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21/01/2026 *R.N , Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: Appellant 1. Respondent 2. CIT 3. CIT(Appeals) 4. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "