Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Balbir Singh,Gurgaon vs Ito Ward 1(3), Gurgaon on 30 June, 2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'G' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I TA No.2118/Del/2025
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18)
Balbir Singh, Income Tax Officer
H. No.35, Vill Medhawas, Ward-1(3),
Gurugaon, Vs. Gurugaon-12201.
Haryana-122002.
PAN:BUUPS1358E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by CA Charitra Kumar
Department by Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 25.06.2025
Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('the CIT(A) in short), dated 20.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 10 days for which a condonation application is filed wherein it is stated that the delay was due to the impression that time limit for filing for appeal was two months from the end of the month in which the appellate order was served and accordingly the appeal was filed on 31.03.2025, though the order of Ld. CIT(A) was received on 28.01.2025. Under these circumstances it is submitted by Ld. AR of the assessee that the delay being bonafide and thus prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has objected to the same.
4. Considering the rival submission. Looking to the fact that there is petty delay of 10 days for which assessee has stated the reasons which appears to 2 IT No.2118/Del/2025 Balbir Singh vs. ITO be genuine and bonafide, therefore, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
5. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the appeal is not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) as it was filed delayed. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessment order was not served on the assessee as the address mentioned in the said notice was incorrect. This fact was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A). It is stated by ld. AR that when he received the notice for recovery of outstanding demand at his correct address, the assessee immediately contacted with the AO and obtained the certified copy of the order and, thereafter the appeal was filed thus, the appeal was well within the time limit from the date of service of certified copy of order. Assessee has also filed the evidences in support of this claim. It is further submitted by the assessee that assessee was under depression and, therefore, could not appear before the ld. CIT(A). He, thus, requested that the matter may be sent back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration as both the lower authorities passed the orders ex-parte.
6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities and objected the request made by the assessee.
7. Heard both the parties. In the instant case, the assessment order was passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. Before us, the assessee has been able to demonstrate that assessment order was not received by the assessee and therefore the appeal could not be filed in time. Only after obtaining the certified copy of the order on 07.12.2022, the appeal was filed, thus, the same was well within time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we admit the appeal of the assessee as maintainable and condoned the delay, if any, in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
8. As the assessment order as well as the order of CIT(A) are not speaking and ex-parte orders, therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the matter is 3 IT No.2118/Del/2025 Balbir Singh vs. ITO set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear and file all the necessary evidences in support of the claim before the AO.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 30.06.2025.
PK/Sr. Ps
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar,
ITAT, New Delhi