RAJRANI SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 28(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2479/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. 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 held that technical objections should not stand in the way of substantial justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication, with the assessee being given three effective opportunities to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which refused to condone a 34-day delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal. The delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without considering the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 09.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Rajrani Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, G-49A, Mahavir Enclave-1, Palam, Ward-28(1), Dabri Road, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. FMJPS3861P Assessee by: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074095074(1) dated 06.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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 34 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 28.07.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 24.05.2023 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

Rajrani Sharma 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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →