JYOTI WEIGHING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 322/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2025AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized that technical aspects must yield to the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessee to plead and prove their case, subject to the taxpayer bearing the risk and responsibility for the consequential proceedings. The issue of the merits of the original appeal was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jyoti Weighing Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal for assessment year 2020-21 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay of 575 days against an order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the CPC. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT challenges this refusal to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay of 575 days in filing the assessee's appeal, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control and that the condonation petition explained all the reasons. The assessee relied on the principle that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. Revenue's Contentions: The Departmental Representative could not dispute that the assessee had filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 30.06.2025Pronounced: 30.06.2025

Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2024-25/1070757751(1), dated 29.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 154 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 of 575 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 09.11.2023 against the CPC’s order dated 14.03.2022, 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. 5. That being the case, we 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 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.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →