KARUNA JAIN,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(3), GURUGRAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3088/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2025AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 828 days in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that communication gaps at various levels might have occurred, preventing them from adequately presenting their case before the CIT(A)/NFAC. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at their risk and responsibility. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, without deciding the merits of the additions made by the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Karuna Jain, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order was passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee faced a delay of 828 days in filing the present appeal, which the ITAT condoned. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The revenue supported the lower authorities' actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's averments regarding communication gaps. (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay of 828 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, citing communication gaps at various levels which prevented them from appearing and presenting their case effectively before the lower appellate proceedings. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to support their plea for condonation. Revenue's contention: The revenue vehemently supported the action of the learned lower authorities, implying they did not agree with the condonation of delay or the merits of the assessee's case, and supported the additions made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv
Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047328237(1), dated 15.11.2022 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 828 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Learned counsel next 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, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.

4.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. It is, therefore, deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore 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 →