ITAT Delhi Restores Appeal After Non-Appearance Attributed to Accountant’s Heart Attack

The appeal was filed by a company named S.L. Contractors Pvt. Ltd against the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-24(1) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) “C” Bench, Delhi, before Shri Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Shri Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member). The case was heard on November 19, 2025, and the final decision was announced on November 21, 2025.

Through the present appeal, the assessee challenged an order dated June 23, 2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal before NFAC was filed challenging an order dated March 26, 2023, passed by the ITO, Ward-24(1) Delhi, under Sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19.

When the tribunal heard both sides, it noted that the assessee had not filed its income tax return (ITR) for the assessment year 2018-19, although the company received contractual receipts worth Rs. 4.67 crore from various parties for which TDS was also deducted. During the investigation, the assessee was called to explain its side. However, it did not appear for a hearing before the AO. In conclusion, the assessing officer (AO) treated these contractual receipts as undisclosed income and made an addition to the assessee’s income under Section 69A of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) challenging the impugned order. However, the NFAC dismissed the appeal, as the assessee again failed to appear at the personal hearing.

For this non-compliance, the authorised representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee’s accountant was responsible for informing all the necessary statutory compliance. However, he suddenly suffered a heart attack and, hence, could not inform the assessee about the scheduled date of his personal hearing. Additionally, they claimed all the disclosed sales as well as purchases/expenses were genuine. In fact, the sales were made to establish Japanese companies. The assessee also submitted all relevant evidence to support its arguments.

The tribunal found the reason given by the assessee for non-compliance as genuine and decided to grant the assessee a second chance to present its side. The tribunal remanded the case to the assessing officer (AO) for fresh consideration, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard and then issuing a fresh order. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.