Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 ITAT CK 6672

Binay Kumar Khandelwal vs ITO

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", New Delhi · Decided on 21 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member · Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 7464/Del/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 333 words

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The application for condonation of delay of 142 days in filing appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee are against order dated 28.10.2025 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of separate assessment order dated 27.03.2024 of ld. Assessing Officer/ ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that there is delay of 142 days in filing appeal due to non-receipt of impugned order. The appellant is non-resident Indian residing in USA since 2008. The explanation for condonation of delay does not smack of malafides, therefore, delay of 142 days in filing appeal is condoned.

3.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance of assessee despite 3 notices. Ld. AO had passed ex parte assessment order. The matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.

4.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned orders.

5.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.10.2025 dismissed the appeal, since the assessee failed to appear despite issuance of 3 notices. Ld. AO had passed ex parte order. The appellant/assessee has claimed that he is Non-resident Indian residing in USA.

6.

In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 28.10.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) and dated 27.03.2024 of Ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

7.

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 142 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.