What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 639-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding no mala fides. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 639 days in filing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and sought condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the assessee deserves an opportunity to present its case.

Competent Vidyut Towers Pvt Ltd… vs CIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5768/Del/2026, A.Y. 2018-19 Competent Vidyut Towers Vs. Commissioner of Income Pvt. Ltd. Tax (Appeals) 610/2, Chhattarpur, NFAC, New Delhi New Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AACCC1646D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The application for condonation of delay of 639 days in filing the appeal and the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against order dated 14.09.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 5768/Del/2026 Competent Vidyut Towers P. Ltd.

25.03.2021 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19.

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment for issues of default in TDS and disallowance for such default and unsecured loans. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.09.2019 was issued. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2020, 13.02.2020, 14.09.2020 and 02.11.2020 were issued. The assessee filed ITR on 31.03.2019. The assessee was asked to furnish details vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the assessee made submissions on 28.02.2020. Show cause notice was issued on 09.02.2021 but assessee did not submit any reply. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 25.03.2021 made additions of Rs. 1,24,61,570/- or Rs. 47,08,060/-.

2.1 Against order dated 25.03.2021 of ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2024.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 639 days in filing the appeal and preferred the appeal on following grounds:

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 5768/Del/2026 Competent Vidyut Towers P. Ltd.

“1. The appeal Order dated 14.09.2024 is bad in law. 2. The appeal order dated 14.09.2024 is not based on facts of the case. 3. Unfortunately, the assessee did not receive any notice relating to the assessment proceedings or appeal proceeding either through email or through Post at the registered address of assessee. Assessee deserve adequate opportunity to explain its case before the officer. 4. The assessee missed to make use of the opportunity the Ld. Appeal Authority wanted to grant. 5. The order of the officer is based on non-representation/non reply and is nto based on demerits of the case. 6. The results of the said order in Appeal are harsh on assessee and justice will be served if another opportunity is given to present facts before the Officer. 7. It would not be one sided benefit to the Revenue if the opportunity is granted to the Assessee to be heard again. The assessee is confident to prove the additions under section 68 as incorrect.” 4. At the time of hearing, non-appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not filed application for condonation of delay of 639 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

From examination of record in light of the aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14.09.2024 dismissed the appeal of assessee being barred by limitation, since, the assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay of 639 days in filing the appeal. In the present appeal, there is delay of 639 days in filing appeal due to non-receipt of communication, improper advice due to change in rules of law and recipient reply not forwarding notices to the management. Application is supported by affidavit of the Director of assessee company. The explanation for condonation

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5768/Del/2026 Competent Vidyut Towers P. Ltd.

of delay does not smack of mala fides as the assessee has not gained anything by not filing of appeal within period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 639 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, delay of 639 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:10.08.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

COMPETENT VIDYUT TOWERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL 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