SUKRITI SAHNI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1024/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 771 days, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and relevant case law. It also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order that refused to condone a delay of 771 days in filing the lower appeal, which occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic period. The delay was explained in light of a landmark Supreme Court decision regarding the extension of limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the lower appeal should be condoned considering the pandemic and relevant legal precedents? Whether the impugned lower appellate order complied with the statutory requirements like Section 250(6)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sukriti Sahni, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-9, Westend Colony, Ward-28(1), New Delhi-110021 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BPWPS4485P Assessee by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073141430(1) dated 10.02.2025, in proceedings u/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 771 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 22.02.2022 against the assessment order dated 07.12.2019. That being the case, it is manifestly clear that most of the intervening time period herein above is covered under Covid-19 pandemic Sukriti Sahni outbreak upto 28.02.2022 which already stood excluded for all intents/purposes as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

4.

Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 771 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →