Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 04 ITAT CK 3724

Pradeep Kumar Tyagi vs Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 17 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member · Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.8547/DEL/2025

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

6 paragraphs · 440 words

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 23.10.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal without condoning the delay of about 1792 days made before him in the filing of the appeal. It was contended that the assessee was having a genuine ground in as much as the e-mail provide to the Department for communication belonged to the erstwhile accountant, who did not inform him about either the assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings. The assessee learnt of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders only when he approached revenue authorities for its refund of subsequent years. The ld. Counsel pleaded that there was no intention to default the statutory notices. It was accordingly requested that last opportunity be accorded and matter may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after condoning the delay.

3.

The ld. DR informed that the assessee is a habitual defaulter, who had failed to comply in assessment and appellate proceedings. It was submitted that suitable cost be imposed for wasting the precious time of this Court.

4.

Heard rival parties in the light of material available on records. We are conscious that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. The appellant has admitted that the delay was caused on account of non-attendance to e-mail communications, which actually never came to the notice of the appellant. Be that as it may be, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the appellant deserves one last chance to defend its case. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter de novo in accordance with law, and after giving due opportunity of being heard. The appellant shall be bounden to comply with the statutory notices and in the event of any non-compliance, the Revenue shall be at liberty to draw adverse conclusions. This order is subject to deposit of a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The appellant shall file a copy of the same before the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.