JAGMOHAN SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT A -13 , NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4199/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 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 condoned the delay, referencing the Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors case and the COVID-19 pandemic period. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for assessment year 2010-11, which was delayed by 488 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, citing a lack of justifiable reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and should be condoned by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. CIT(A)-13, Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, B-9/36, Sector-05, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AZLPS2795L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Goel, 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 2010-11, 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/250/2023-24/1059004879(1), dated 22.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 488 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 1597 days in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 27.05.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 11.12.2017, thereby holding him to have failed in submitting any justifiable reasons thereof.

4.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the majority of the intervening time period between the above Assessing Officer’s processing and the date of the institution of the assessee’s lower appeal already stands covered under the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 in the light of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation case (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

5.

This is indeed coupled with the fact that he had sought to explain before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC that the impugned processing had also not been received in the intervening time period. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the foregoing delay of 1597 days in filing of the lower appeal in the light of Collector, Land &

2 | P a g e Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities, at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →