JAG MOHAN SINDAR,SONEPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SONEPAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 447 days, citing Supreme Court judgments and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order. The lower appellate authority refused to condone a delay of 447 days in filing the appeal. The intervening period was largely covered by the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority should be condoned, and whether the order of the lower appellate authority was compliant with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
- 441 ITR 722162 citing441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072149982(1) dated 14.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It is noticed at the outset that the learned lower appellate authority has refused to condone the assessee’s 447 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 17.04.2021 against the assessment order dated 27.12.2019. That being the case, it is manifestly clear that most of the intervening time period herein above is covered under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak upto 28.02.2022 which already stood excluded for all
Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 447 days institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jashim Uddin vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OrsGauhati · 1 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Khadeer Baig vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Zenith Metaplast(P) Limited vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026