Umesh Chand vs ITO Ward 2(3)(2), Bulandshahar

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 10.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2023-24.

Shri Satyajeet Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that there was 121 days delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had filed an application before the CIT(A) praying for condonation of delay stating reasons. The ld. Counsel explained that delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for the reason that the assessment order was not received by the assessee. He submitted that the email address registered with the Income Tax Department was of an ex-employee i.e. [email protected]. Since, Shri Chandergupt Goyal had left employment of the assessee, the assessment order sent to the email address of the assessee’s former employee was never received by the assessee. The ld. Counsel also refers to the affidavit filed by the assessee in this regard to support his contentions. The ld. Counsel submits that now the assessee has updated his current email address i.e. [email protected] on portal of the Department. The notice can be sent to the assessee by the Department at the updated/current email address. He further pointed that for the similar reason, the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) during assessment proceedings, hence, the assessment was made by the AO invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act. He prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee is engaged in trading of liquor and cash deposits in the bank account are from the liquor business. The assessee can explain source of cash deposits in his bank account. The assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for restoring the matter back to the AO.

Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department, opposed the matter being restored back to the AO for fresh assessment. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the impugned order.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. Considering entire facts of the case, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but was for the reasons stated by the assessee in the affidavit, which appears to be bonafide. Since, the assessment has been made ex-parte, the matter is restored back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

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