TAURUS INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient for condonation. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the case was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 59 days. The delay occurred because the assessee's counsel misled the management regarding compliance with notices, and the demand order was passed without the assessee's knowledge.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is sufficient to be condoned and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A) in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/ 10268929 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
From the perusal of the appellate order, it is found that ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as the appeal was filed delay by 59 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation Taurus International Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. AO petition was that assessee was represented by the counsel who’s mail id was given in the income tax portal. The Counsel has conveyed the management that due compliance were made to the notices issued time to time, however, such communication was misleading and no replies were filed and when the order was received such order was not conveyed to the managements. When the assessee visited the income tax portal for making other compliances under the Act, it was found that the order creating demand has already been passed. Thus, in this process, the appeal was filed delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) by 59 days. The reason being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Further, it is seen that despite of issue of five notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).
Under these circumstances and the interest of justice, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay has sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, therefore, all the issues are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings and filed the necessary replies within the time limit provided by the Ld. CIT(A). With these directions, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026