Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 07 ITAT CK 2211

Brij Bala Bartwal vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 28 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member · Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA 3915/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

9 paragraphs · 403 words

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 19.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 67 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 67 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

3.

Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were never served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). He submits that the CIT(A) have been issuing notice of hearing to the assessee on wrong email address i.e. [email protected], whereas, in Form No. 35 the assessee had given email address i.e. [email protected] for service of notice and order. He further submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and if an opportunity is allowed to the assessee to make submissions on merits before the CIT(A), the assessee would be able to explain his case and the addition would get knocked off.

4.

Per contra, Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed for upholding the same.

5.

Both sides heard, impugned order examined. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings has dismissed appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution as well as on merits. The assessee has explained reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) i.e. notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee on wrong email address. In absence of service of notice, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings before the CIT(A). Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

6.

The CIT(A) shall serve notice(s) to the assessee on the email address available in Form No. 35 i.e. [email protected].

7.

The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.

8.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.