Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from the CIT(A)/NFAC's order which refused to condone a delay of 65 days in filing the lower appeal. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer on 09.12.2019.
Held
The Tribunal held that technicalities must give way to substantial justice. The assessee had explained the delay due to circumstances beyond their control, and the departmental representative could not dispute this. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, given the circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 M/s AVM Electric Company, Vs Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 5, Silokhra Village, South Ward-1(5), City, Phase-1, Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-122002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAMFA0032E Assessee by: Sh. Utkarsh, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073614660(1) dated 24.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 65 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 27.09.2021 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 09.12.2019 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.
AVM Electric Company 4. Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond it’s control.
That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), steeling 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 assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.