Neeta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided two appeals for Assessment Year 2018-19 arising from separate orders dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. One appeal related to the quantum assessment and the other to the penalty levied under Section 270A.
The dispute before the Tribunal concerned the refusal of the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeals. According to the CIT(A), the quantum appeal was delayed by 1486 days and the penalty appeal by 1181 days. The assessee had explained in Form No. 35 that she had not received the statutory notices during the assessment proceedings or the assessment order at her current address. She stated that she became aware of the substantial demand only later, whereupon she approached the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on 19.05.2025, obtained certified copies of the orders on 20.05.2025, and filed the appeals before the CIT(A) on 18.06.2025. The CIT(A), however, declined to condone the delay and dismissed both appeals without examining the issues on merits.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 22.06.2026 explaining the delay. She stated that the email ID registered on the income-tax portal belonged to her Chartered Accountant, Mr. Sanju Sharma, and that she had engaged a part-time accountant, Late Shri Naveen Mehra, who was associated with the said Chartered Accountant. According to the affidavit, they did not inform her about the income-tax proceedings. She further stated that the notices and assessment order were not received by her, were not uploaded on the income-tax portal, and were not served physically. The affidavit also referred to a change of address during the first half of 2019 from Mandoli, Delhi to Shahadara, Delhi, and stated that no notices were received at either address. She reiterated that immediately after learning of the demand, she obtained certified copies from the JAO on 20.05.2025 and filed the appeals within 30 days. She also submitted that the limitation period should be computed from the date of service of the assessment order rather than its date and that refusal to condone the delay would cause her severe prejudice and irreparable loss.
