Archive · 15 Sep 2026
Delhi ITAT Grants Relief After Missed Notices, Deletes Tax Addition
Hira Ballabh Khulbe moved away from his old address.
Tax notices were sent there, so he said he never saw them.
The tax department later treated an ₹11 lakh bank deposit as income.
This created a tax demand of ₹5.06 lakh.
Khulbe learned about the demand years later through his chartered accountant.
He explained that most of the money came from selling a home and the rest from savings.
The tribunal accepted his reasons for filing the appeal late.
It also accepted the documents supporting where the money came from and removed the tax addition.
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned a 2,073-day delay in Hira Ballabh Khulbe’s appeal.
Reassessment notices concerning an ₹11 lakh cash deposit were sent to Khulbe’s former Faridabad address.
The Assessing Officer treated the entire deposit as income, creating a tax demand of ₹5.06 lakh.
Khulbe said ₹8 lakh came from a residential-property sale and ₹3 lakh from past savings.
The tribunal accepted his explanation and documents, deleted the ₹11 lakh addition, and allowed the appeal.
- Who
- Hira Ballabh Khulbe, the Assessing Officer, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, and the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were involved.
- What
- The tribunal condoned a 2,073-day appeal delay and deleted an ₹11 lakh addition related to a cash deposit.
- When
- The assessment concerned AY 2012-13; Khulbe said he moved in December 2010, learned of the demand in AY 2023-24, and filed his appeal on 9 September 2025. The tribunal order was pronounced on 4 August 2026.
- Where
- The notices were sent to Khulbe’s former address in Faridabad, and the ruling was issued by the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Why
- The tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and accepted the explanation and documents supporting the source of the cash deposit.
Taxpayer’s position
Tax authorities’ position
Missed notices and delayed appeal
Taxpayer’s position
Khulbe said he had moved from Faridabad in December 2010, no family member remained at the old address, and he therefore did not receive the notices or know about the proceedings.
Tax authorities’ position
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal because it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Source of the cash deposit
Taxpayer’s position
Khulbe said ₹8 lakh came from the sale of a residential property and ₹3 lakh came from past savings, supported by an affidavit and documents.
Tax authorities’ position
The Assessing Officer treated the entire ₹11 lakh cash deposit as income in the ex parte reassessment.
- Taxpayer
- Hira Ballabh Khulbe
- Assessment year
- AY 2012-13
- Cash deposit
- ₹11 lakh in a joint account held by Khulbe and his wife
- Tax demand
- ₹5.06 lakh
- Appeal delay
- 2,073 days
- Appeal filing date
- 9 September 2025
- Tribunal order
- Pronounced on 4 August 2026 by Judicial Member Madhumita Roy