MANOJ KUMAR YADAV,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps prevented them from presenting all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower appellate authority and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1080115981(1), dated 28.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
ITA No.3441/Del/2026
Delay of 150 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). 3. 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. 4. 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 appellant’s 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 17th August, 2026
2 | P a g e
ITA No.3441/Del/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th August, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026