What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to potential communication gaps.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was filed with a delay of 87 days. The assessee claimed that communication gaps prevented them from appearing and presenting facts before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's failure to appear before the lower appellate authority was due to justifiable reasons like communication gaps, warranting a remand.

Sunil Arora, Sonipat vs Incoem Tax Officer, Civic Centre | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: CA (VC)

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.5898/Del/2026 Sunil Arora (AY: 2017-18)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5898/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Arora Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-3/601 Kingsbury Ward -43(6), Appartments. TDI City E-2, Block, Civic Centre Kundli, Sonipat New Delhi – 110001 Haryana – 131023 PAN: AFIPA9626F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Rajat Garg, CA (VC) Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 20.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084016692(1), dated 23.12.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.4350/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 87 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities’ action making addition(s) herein on merits.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.4350/Del/2026

appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th September, 2026. Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

SUNIL ARORA,SONIPAT vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments