DEEPAK,ROHTAK vs. ITO, WARD - 3, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7566/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 147 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, stating the reasons provided were not justifiable.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7566/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deepak, Rohtak Vs. Income Tax Officer, H.No. 1028, Ward-3, Ward-9, Rohtak Sector-3, Rohtak Rohtak, Haryana- 124001 PAN: AOJPD9020N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nakkul Gupta, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.08.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2026-27/1089247907(1) dated 27.05.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.7566/Del/2026

3.

Delay of 147 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 147 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 11.09.2025 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 18.03.2025, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons. 3. Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control. 4. That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC is condoned and the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7566/Del/2026

CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 02/09/2026. Binita, 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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →