MAASUGARVNITA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5623/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condonation of delay. Dismissing the appeals in limine resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC with significant delays, which were dismissed in limine as the delay was not condoned. The assessee's case before the Assessing Officer was a best judgment assessment due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the significant delay in filing the appeals, thereby preventing the assessee from arguing the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan&

Hearing: 03.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

Heard together (6 matters)

ITA No. 5619/Del/2026
ITA No. 5620/Del/2026
ITA No. 5621/Del/2026
ITA No. 5622/Del/2025
ITA No. 5623/Del/2025
ITA No. 5624/Del/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member ITA No. 5619/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 5620/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 5621/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 5622/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year : 2020-21 ITA No. 5623/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year : 2020-21 ITA No. 5624/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 608, 6th Floor, P. P. Tower, Netaji Ward-16(1), Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AALCM0072G Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.09.2026 ORDER Per Bench:

The instant batch of six appeals pertains to the single

assessees herein namely, Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. All other

relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:

S l. N o. ITA N o s. A.Y . Ap pe llant Re spon den t Orde r pa s se d ag a in s t Pro cee d ing s u / s 1- 2 561 9 & 201 9 -20 Ma a su ga rvn it a ITO C IT (A )/ N FAC , D e lh i 147 /144 562 2 /De l/2 02 6 & Pv t. Lt d. u/s 25 0 202 0 -21 D ate d : 13 .0 3. 202 6 3- 4 562 0 & 201 9 -20 Ma a su ga rvn it a ITO C IT (A )/ N FAC , D e lh i 272A AC (1 ) 562 4 /D e l/2 02 6 & Pv t. Lt d. u/s 25 0 202 0 -21 D ate d : 13 .0 3. 202 6 5- 6 562 1 & 201 9 -20 Ma a su ga rvn it a ITO C IT (A )/ N FAC , D e lh i 270A 562 3 /D e l/2 02 6 & Pv t. Lt d. u/s 25 0 202 0 -21 D ate d : 13 .0 3. 202 6

2 ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2026 Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. 2. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi alongwith request to condone the delay of 268 days (in ITA Nos. 5619 & 5622/Del/2026), 183 days (in ITA Nos. 5623 & 5624/Del/2026) and 182 days (in ITA No. 5620 & 5621/Del/2026). The ld. CIT(A) however was not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed in limine.

3.

We have noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

3 ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2026 Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 4. It is an admitted fact that the assessment order subject matter of appeal ITA Nos. 5619 & 5622/Del/2026, was best judgment assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act as the assessee failed to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The appeals against the quantum proceedings as well as against penalty proceedings have been dismissed in limine as the ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 268 days (in ITA Nos. 5619 & 5622/Del/2026), 183 days (in ITA Nos. 5623 & 5624/Del/2026) and 182 days (in ITA No. 5620 & 5621/Del/2026) on the ground that the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory.

5.

We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which find mentions in para 3 at page 5 (ITA No. 5619/Del/2026), as under:

4 ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2026 ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2026 Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd.

6.

It is settled law that the technicalities are hand It is settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of It is settled law that the technicalities are hand justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regardi the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal. in filing the appeal.

7.

In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was settled legal position, we are of the considered view a fit case for cond a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation onation of delay because the explanation given by assessee to the given by assessee to the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified.

5 ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2026 Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. Dismissal of the appeal in limine against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, in our opinion has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order against the quantum proceeding is set aside. It is noted that the assessment order was also passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without effective representation by the assessee, hence, we deem it expedient to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same after giving effective opportunities of hearing. Since the appellate order against the quantum proceedings has been set aside, the subsequent penalty proceedings also stands set aside. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).

8.

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 09/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 09/09/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →