GEETA BAL SHIKHA SAMITI,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2283/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 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?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 08.07.2025Pronounced: 08.07.2025

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.

2.

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.

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 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →