What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay of 516 days. The assessee contended that communication gaps prevented them from appearing and presenting their case before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal should be heard on merits despite a significant delay, and if communication gaps warrant a remand to the lower appellate authority.

Tanveer Ahmad Ansari, Bijnor Up vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Iram Jahan, Adv. (VC)

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.7629/Del/2026 Tanveer Ahmad Ansari (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.7629/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Tanveer Ahmad Ansari Vs. Income Tax Officer Moh Patwariyan, Ward-3(5), Dhampur, Chungi, Dhampur Stationed at Near Fabbara Najibabad Post Seohara, Uttar Pradesh – 246763 U.P. – 246746 PAN: AUWPA3446Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Ms. Iram Jahan, Adv. (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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071190881(1), dated 13.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.7629/Del/2026 Tanveer Ahmad Ansari (AY: 2017-18) Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 516 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

P a g e | 3 ITA No.7629/Del/2026 Tanveer Ahmad Ansari (AY: 2017-18) appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

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

TANVEER AHMAD ANSARI,BIJNOR UP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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