MANGA,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-2 PANIPAT, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4253/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2017-20183 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 of 125 days in filing the appeal, citing the larger interest of justice and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps at various levels, as submitted by the assessee. Consequently, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manga, has filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 125 days, which the Tribunal condoned citing the larger interest of justice and the precedent in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority, and therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The Revenue supported the actions of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal should be condoned in the larger interest of justice, considering the precedent in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that due to communication gaps at various levels, they were unable to appear and present all relevant facts before the lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, restoring the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC would serve the larger interest of justice. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the actions of the learned lower authorities, making additions on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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

Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2024-25/1071683379(1), dated 30.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 125 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.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →