KAMAL KUMAR BATRA,WEST DELHI vs. ADDL-JCIT-(A)-1, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3854/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal, finding it well explained. Since the assessee was not served due notices, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) arising from an order passed by the ADIT, CPC. The appeal faced a delay of 263 days in filing, which was attributed to a staff mistake. The assessee also claimed non-receipt of hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to non-service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

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 BENCHES: C : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 09.05.2025

ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.10.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-1, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short) in Appeal No.NFAC/2020-21/10214590 arising out of the appeal before it against the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR has pointed out that there is a delay in filing the appeal due to some mistake of staff though the fee of Rs. 10000/- was paid in due time. We find that the delay though of 263 days is well explained. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

3.

Further, the ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee was not served notice of hearing due to which the assessee was unable to file submissions and evidences showing that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 143 Taxmann.com 178 is not applicable as the amounts deducted were not on account of ESI and EPF.

4.

In any case, since the assessee was not served the notices in due course of events, we allow the appeal for statistical purposes and restore the issues on merits and law, if any, raised by the assessee to the files of ld. CIT(A) to issue a fresh notice and decide the appeal afresh.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →