DC BUILDTECH AND CO NSULING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3517/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that technical aspects should give way to substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arose against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned to provide substantial justice.

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: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

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

For Respondent: mr Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2024-25/1065345122 (1), dated 03.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) 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 29.03.2017 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 20.03.2015, 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 its condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond its control.

4.

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 its 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →