Delhi High Court
ITA/782/2026 of RANJITGARH FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI on 28 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010467282026 + ITA 782/2026 & CM APPL. 67280/2026 RANJITGARH FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Milind Gautam, Advocate. versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha,
$~49
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010467282026
+
ITA 782/2026 & CM APPL. 67280/2026
RANJITGARH FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through:
Mr. Milind Gautam, Advocate.
versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC
with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC,
Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSC and
Ms. Priya Katare and Mr.
Himanshu Gaur, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
28.09.2026 CM APPL. 67281/2026 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 67280/2026 (Delay)
3. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in re- filing the present appeal.
4. It is stated that the defects were first marked on 18.08.2026 and, owing to the personal health issues of learned counsel for the Appellant, the appeal could not be re-filed within the prescribed time and was re-filed on 09.09.2026.
5. Having regard to the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The application stands disposed of as allowed. ITA 782/2026
7. A perusal of the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, (ITAT) and particularly paragraph 3 thereof, shows that the appeal was heard in the absence of the Assessee on the ground that none appeared for the Assessee despite issuance of several notices. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to hear the learned Departmental Representative and dismissed the appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Assessee submits that the Assessee was duly represented before the Tribunal on 23.04.2026, when the matter was adjourned to 07.05.2026 with a direction to file revised grounds of appeal, which were duly filed on 06.05.2026. He further submits that the matter was taken up and reserved by the Tribunal on 07.05.2026, despite the Assessee having been represented on the previous hearing and having filed the revised grounds prior to the date of hearing.
9. The record shows that the revised grounds of appeal were filed by the Assessee on 06.05.2026, i.e. prior to the date on which the matter was taken up for hearing.
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the fact that the Assessee had been represented before the Tribunal on 23.04.2026, had been directed to file revised grounds of appeal, and had in fact filed the revised grounds on 06.05.2026, this Court is of the view that the appeal ought to be considered by the Tribunal after affording the
Assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 4088/Del/2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/ng/my