USHA GARG,DEHRADUN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

ITA 76/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Usha Garg, the appellant, who filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre) for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The appeals were initially delayed by 419 days due to the Assessee's relocation and personal circumstances following her husband's death. The tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, condoned the delay. The core issues in the appeals included the lack of opportunity for the Assessee to be heard in the first appellate proceedings and the jurisdictional authority of the Income Tax Officer who passed the assessment orders. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without addressing the merits of the case, leading to the decision to remand the matter back for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714159 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• 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: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K. K. JUNEJA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 76 & 77/DDN/2025 UshaGarg vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘DEHRADUN/’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 76/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) ITA No. 77/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) UshaGarg Flat No. 102A, 37, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: ABUPG3679G Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) (3), Dehradun Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 07/12/2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 419 days in filing both the Captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee has shifted her residence after the demise of her husband i.e. on 14/01/2011, all the correspondences have been done by Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 76 & 77/DDN/2025 UshaGarg vs. ITO the lower authorities to the old address, therefore, Assessee could not be served with the order impugned. Further submitted that the Assessee has not opened her e-mail on time due to demise of her family member, therefore, there is a delay in filing the captioned Appeals. Therefore, sought for condoning the delay. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the captioned Appeals, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeals 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 as the Assessee has shifted her residence after the demise of her husband i.e. on 14/01/2011 and all the correspondences have been done by the lower authorities to the old address of the Assessee, therefore, the Assessee could not be served with the order impugned, which resulted in filing the Appeals with delay. Further also submitted that the Assessee has not opened her e-mail on time due to demise of her family members. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 76 & 77/DDN/2025 UshaGarg vs. ITO 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 419 days in filing the present Appeals. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 17,08,710/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs. 10,20,490/- for Assessment Year 2012-13. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016, the Assessee preferred Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 07/12/2023, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeals. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Further submitted that the assessment order came to be Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 76 & 77/DDN/2025 UshaGarg vs. ITO passed by the non-jurisdictional ITO and the assessment order came to be passed without the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) 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 of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. The Assessee has raised the several grounds of appeal including the Ground of exercising the wrong jurisdiction by the A.O. and also non service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the Grounds of appeal. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee and pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to participate in the first appellate proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 76 & 77/DDN/2025 UshaGarg vs. ITO 10. In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 06.08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "