Shakuntala Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
he appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi concerned an order dated 10 January 2024 issued by the CIT(A)/NFAC, arising from an assessment order passed under Sections 144 read with 147 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee raised several grounds challenging the appellate order, primarily alleging violation of natural justice and improper confirmation of additions. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal despite a request for adjournment and without granting adequate opportunity. The main addition of ₹84.04 lakh, treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 due to non-response to notices, was challenged on grounds that the decision was made without considering submissions or allowing reasonable time. Additional grounds questioned the correctness of the tax demand, interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 270A and 271AAC. The assessee also reserved the right to modify the grounds at the time of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 260 days. The assessee submitted an application and affidavit seeking condonation of delay, explaining that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond her control. After considering the explanation and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
During the hearing, the assessee’s counsel argued that the CIT(A) had not addressed the issues in accordance with Section 250(6), which requires a reasoned, speaking order. It was submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without examining the merits. The counsel requested that the matter be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex parte because the assessee did not appear despite repeated notices. However, the Tribunal also noted that the appellate order lacked a discussion on merits and did not satisfy the statutory requirement of a reasoned order under Section 250(6). The Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration. It directed that the case be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with instructions to allow the assessee an opportunity to present her case and to consider any evidence submitted. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee again failed to cooperate, the CIT(A) would be free to decide the matter in accordance with law.
The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in open court on 5 November 2025.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The instant appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, arising out of the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Noida, under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2011-12.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“The learned CIT[A] erred in disposing/dismissing the appeal despite the appellant seeking adjournment which is against principles of natural justice.
2 The learned CIT[A] erred in confirming addition of Rs 84.04 lakhs made due to non-response by assessee to notice u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of AO as unexplained investment in immovable property.
3 The learned CIT[A] erred in confirming addition of Rs 84.04 lakhs by AO because the assessee counsel not furnished the reply in due time.
4 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition R of Rs 84.04 lakhs by AO u/s 69 of the Act without affording a reasonable opportunity.
5 The tax demand raised is wrong
6 The interest charged u/s 234 A is wrong
7 The interest charged u/s 234 B is wrong
8 The interest charged u/s 234 C is wrong
9 Penalty proceeding initiated u/s 270A is wrong
10 Penalty proceeding initiated u/s 271AAC is wrong
11 The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other
12 The appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter or abandon any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”
3. The instant appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 260 days. An application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit filed by the assessee are available on record, explaining the delay beyond her control in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the reasons made in the condonation application and particularly following the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. V. MST. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471(SC), the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Learned First Appellate Authority has not dealt with the matter in terms with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act and has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine without considering the the issue raised before him. He prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A).
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is revealed from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before him inspite of notices being sent, therefore, having no other alternative, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded with the appeal and finalized the same ex parte. However, it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the matter in terms of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act by passing a reasoned order on merits on the issue raised before him and hence in our considered opinion the matter requires to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the issue afresh by granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. We also make it clear that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A), the said authority would be at liberty to proceed with the matter and finalize the same strictly in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 05.11.2025.
