Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2018-19 against an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had refused to condone a delay of 641 days in filing the assessee's lower appeal. The original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee did not appear for the tribunal hearing, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.
Held
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal held that technicalities must yield to the cause of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the taxpayer proving their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone a 641-day delay in filing an appeal, and the application of the principle of substantial justice over technical aspects.
Sections Cited
143(3)
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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 08.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2024-25/1074701734(1), dated 19.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 641 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 18.02.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 17.04.2021, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.
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.
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 its 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2025