Late Sh. Virendra Kumar vs Income Tax Officer, Tyagi Ward (3)(5), Deoband

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The application for condonation of delay of 269 days in filing appeal and the Legal Heir of assessee is against order dated 25.03.2025 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [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 assessment order dated 20.12.2016 of ld. Assessing Officer/ITO, Ward (3)(5), Deoband (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act for assessment year 2011-12.

Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were supported with erroneous of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.02.2016. The assessee filed reply stating that return already filed on 09.10.2012 be treated as in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 09.03.2016, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 27.04.2016, 03.06.2016 and 25.07.2016 were issued. A letter dated 20.09.2016, the assessee alongwith Sri Prabhat Rana, Advocate attended proceedings. On 08.11.2016 an application was filed by counsel for assessee stating that the assessee had expired and his son Sri Ashutosh Tyagi will look after further proceedings. A letter dated 11.11.2016 was issued to Sri Ashutosh Tyagi, legal heir of the assessee. Letter dated 22.011.2016 along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to Sri Ashutosh Tyagi, legal heir of assessee. Sri Vipin Tyagi, Advocate attended proceedings. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 20.12.2016 made addition of Rs. 20 lacs.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 269 days in filing appeal and present appeal.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing prayer for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing appeal due to misplacement of assessment order by the counsel of legal heir of the assessee. The notices of the appeal were sent to the mail id’s [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] which were neither related to the assessee nor to the legal heir of the assessee and Mobile No. 9760791184 was disconnected after the death of the assessee Sh. Virendra Kumar Tyagi. The impugned ex parte appellate order came to notice of assessee on receipt of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the assessing authority on 12.03.2026. So, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the appellant/assessee had failed to comply with the notices.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that there is delay of 269 days in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of notices as the notices were sent to mail ID’s not related to assessee or his legal heir and the mobile no. 9760791184 was disconnected after death of assessee. The explanation does not smack of malafides as appellant has not anything by not filing of appeal before Tribunal within period of limitation. Therefore, delay of 269 days in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 25.03.2025 dismissed. The appeal on ground of delay of 114 days in filing appeal. The delay of 114 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was due to misplacement of assessment order by the counsel. The appellant/assessee has prayed for restoration of matter to the file of ld. AO for verification of record on basis of which the addition was made. The legal heir of assessee had failed to comply with various notices.

In view of above material facts, the impugned orders dated 25.05.2025 of ld. CIT(A) and 20.12.2016 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 assessee.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.