NIKHIL KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPTT. DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4198/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2021-223 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay of 1 day in filing the assessee's appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized that all technical aspects must yield to the cause of substantial justice. The reasoning was that the delay was minimal (1 day) and the assessee had provided reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on its merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the taxpayer to plead and prove their case, subject to the taxpayer bearing the risk and responsibility for the consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Nikhil Kumar Jain, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.10.2024. This order arose from proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2021-22. The assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC on 19.01.2023 against an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 20.12.2022. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone a delay of 1 day in filing this lower appeal, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1 day in filing the assessee's appeal, thereby not adjudicating the substantive grounds of appeal, turning on the principles of condonation of delay in appeals under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that he had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC, explaining all the reasons for the delay, which were due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee relied on the principle laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. Revenue's contention: The learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

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

Assessment Year: 2021-22 Vs. Assessment Unit, Sh. Nikhil Kumar Jain, C36/2, Bhajanpura, Income Tax Dept., North East, Delhi Delhi PAN: ANNPJ5895J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, 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/250/2024-25/1069554731(1), dated 09.10.2024 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.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 1 day in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 19.01.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 20.12.2022, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

3.

Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

4.

That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice, and restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →