ABHIMANYU B SINGH,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), GURUGRAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1738/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2025AY 2010-113 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 technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a condonation petition explaining circumstances beyond his control. 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 adjudicate the appeal within three effective opportunities. The taxpayer is to plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Abhimanyu B. Singh, has filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The impugned order, dated 29.01.2025, was passed in proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue stems from the CIT(A)/NFAC's refusal to condone the delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal, which was instituted on 06.08.2020 against an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 13.10.2017. The CIT(A)/NFAC held that the delay was not explained by justifiable reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the relevant procedural provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that he had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC, explaining all the reasons for the delay, which were due to circumstances beyond his control. Revenue's contention: The learned departmental representative could hardly dispute the assessee's submission that a condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay had been filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 30.06.2025Pronounced: 30.06.2025

Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, 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/250/2024-15/1072686400(1), dated 29.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 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 in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 06.08.2020 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 13.10.2017, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

4.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →