Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The lower appellate authority refused to condone a delay of 138 days in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the pandemic period and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, and whether the CIT(A)/NFAC's order suffered from procedural irregularities.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Vs Income Tax Officer(Exemption) Gohana Road, Haryana-131001 Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABTS9199M Assessee by : Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071376752(1) dated 19.12.2024, in proceedings u/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 138 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 26.02.2025 against the assessment order dated 21.12.2019. 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 138 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.