AKASH MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 August 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing potential communication gaps due to virtual hearings and lack of detailed adjudication in the lower order, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2017-18. There was a delay of 276 days in filing the appeal, attributed to communication gaps. The assessee could not effectively represent their case in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal and whether to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to procedural shortcomings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 25.08.2025Pronounced: 25.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060213974(1) dated 29.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 276 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of

5.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →