The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay of 1,580 days in filing appeals by a senior citizen, accepting her explanation concerning relocation, changes in her mobile number and email address, and misplaced property documents.

The bench of Vimal Kumar (Judicial Member) and Naveen (Accountant Member) set aside the appellate orders, the reassessment order and the penalty order, restoring the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer a fair opportunity of being heard.

Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) Judgments E-Magazine October 2026

The dispute arose from information available with the Income Tax Department concerning cash deposits totalling ₹63,06,000 in the taxpayer’s accounts maintained with Punjab National Bank and Bank of Baroda.

According to the order, the taxpayer had not filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2012–13. The Department initiated reassessment proceedings and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 29, 2019.

The Assessing Officer subsequently issued notices under Section 142(1) on June 17, October 23 and November 11, 2019. A show-cause notice was also issued on November 11, 2019, seeking an explanation concerning the deposits.

The proceedings culminated in an assessment order dated December 5, 2019, under Sections 147 and 144. The Assessing Officer made additions of ₹63,06,000 and ₹2,13,842, aggregating to ₹65,19,842.

The Tribunal’s order does not specify the nature of the second addition.

The Department separately initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a penalty order dated January 27, 2022.

The taxpayer challenged both the assessment and penalty orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre. However, the first appellate authority rejected the applications for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals at the threshold.

Aggrieved by those decisions, the taxpayer approached the ITAT and requested that the matters be restored to the Assessing Officer.

Appearing for the taxpayer, advocate Malav Goswami submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed ex parte orders rejecting the applications for condonation of a 1,580-day delay.

The taxpayer explained that she was a senior citizen who did not have taxable income. She attributed her inability to respond to the proceedings to changes in her mobile number and email address on the income tax portal, lack of prior knowledge of the notices, and relocation from Ambala to the Delhi National Capital Region.

She further stated that several documents concerning the sale and purchase of property in Ambala had been misplaced during relocation.

These circumstances, according to her submissions, prevented her from responding to the notices and participating in the proceedings. She therefore sought an opportunity to present her explanation and relevant documents before the Assessing Officer.

The Revenue, represented by Senior Departmental Representative Harpreet Kaur Hansra, submitted that the taxpayer had failed to appear before the departmental authorities.

After examining the record and considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal accepted the circumstances put forward by the taxpayer as sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

The Bench considered her senior citizen status, her claim of having no taxable income, the changes in contact details associated with relocation, and the misplacement of documents relating to property transactions.

It accordingly condoned the delay of 1,580 days in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal also took note of the taxpayer’s contention that she could not appear in the assessment and appellate proceedings because she had not received the notices.

Considering the material circumstances and the interests of justice, the ITAT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’ orders, the assessment order dated December 5, 2019, and the penalty order dated January 27, 2022.

The Bench restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law, directing that the taxpayer be afforded a fair opportunity of being heard.

Both appeals were consequently allowed for statistical purposes.

The decision gives the taxpayer a fresh opportunity to explain the cash deposits and produce supporting material before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the deposits were satisfactorily explained, whether the additions were justified on their merits, or whether a penalty should ultimately be imposed. Those questions remain open for fresh adjudication.

The relief rests on the particular circumstances accepted by the Bench as sufficient cause for the delay. The order does not establish an automatic entitlement to condonation merely because a taxpayer is a senior citizen or has changed contact details.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Can GST Input Tax Credit Be Denied Despite GSTR-2B Entry And Business Use? Understanding S. 17(5)