SANT LAL HUF,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 18, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6859/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2026AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, finding reasonable cause supported by evidence. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation of delay and adjudicate the appeals on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT with a significant delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals due to this delay, finding no cogent explanation or documentary evidence. However, the assessee provided supporting evidence for the delay before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the appeals should be admitted on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE&

For Appellant: Adv. & Sh. Shailesh
Hearing: 22/09/2026Pronounced: 23/09/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6858/DEL/2026 (A.Y. 2012-13) & ITA No.6859/Del/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14)

SANT LAL (HUF), Vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, D-31, PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI PITAMPURA, DELHI – 110 034 (PAN: AAOHS0046L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 22/09/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23/09/2026

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders both dated 19.02.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”]. Penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) vide orders dated 23.3.2023 and 12.92.2022 relevant to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. Since these appeals are related with same assessee, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 54 days in each appeal filed before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, we find that assessee has filed supporting evidences for causing delay in filing the appeals, thus, prima facie reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in the in filing the belated appeals, thus, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is condoned in both the appeals and admitted the same.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of limitation. It is noted that in the appeal of assessment year 2012-13 before the Ld. CIT(A), there is delay of 564 days and in appeal of assessment year 2013-14 there is delay of 1015 days. It is noted that Ld. CIT(A) could not find any cogency in the explanation given by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of illness, which shows the negligent attitude of the assessee towards the first appellate stage viz. before the CIT(A). However, before us, Ld. AR for the assessee has filed the evidences / documents to substantiate his claim for delay in dispute. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider and examine the evidences/documents with respect to delay in filing the appeals before him and decide the request of delay of condonation of the assessee in both the appeals, in accordance with law. We make it clear that if the Ld. CIT(A) find reasonable cause supported with documentary evidences in condoning the delay in dispute, then delay in dispute may be condoned, in accordance with law and thereafter only both the appeals may be adjudicated on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 4. In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

SRBhatnaggar Date:_23-9-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →