PINKI SAINI,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2284/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 technical aspects should not bar substantial justice and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the taxpayer must prove their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arose against an order by 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 CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and if so, what is the appropriate relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

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: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 03.06.2025

Date of hearing 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2024-25/1073130337(1), dated 11.02.2025 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 the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 30.04.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 26.03.2022, 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.

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 his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at her 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 →