SHER SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3128/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2009-103 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 589 days without considering the substantial justice aspect. Citing 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. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessee to plead and prove their case, with the rider that the taxpayer shall do so at their own risk and responsibility. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Sher Singh, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.11.2024. This order pertains to assessment year 2009-10 and arises from proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue is the CIT(A)/NFAC's refusal to condone a delay of 589 days in filing the assessee's appeal against the Assessing Officer's assessment order dated 18.11.2016. The assessee's original appeal was filed on 10.09.2018. The CIT(A)/NFAC held that the delay was not explained by justifiable reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay of 589 days in filing the assessee's appeal against the assessment order dated 18.11.2016, thereby not adjudicating the appeal on merits, under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that a condonation petition was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, explaining all reasons for the delay 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 filed his condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, 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/250/2024-25/1070649833(1), dated 26.11.2024 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 both sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 589 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 10.09.2018 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 18.11.2016, 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 on merits 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →