STAR POLY STEPS INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1527/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pandemic and relevant case law. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which refused to condone a delay of 251 days in filing the lower appeal. The delay occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic period.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority should be condoned, and whether the lower appellate order complied with statutory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 29.05.2025Pronounced: 29.05.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072595806(1) dated 27.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It is noticed at the outset that the learned lower appellate authority has refused to condone the assessee’s 251 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 01.10.2020 against the assessment order dated 27.11.2019. 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

4.

Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 251 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).

5.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →