GANPATHI ENTERPRISES,MUZAFFARNGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8989/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide reasons for the delay, the CIT(A) should have granted an opportunity to explain. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for a 70-day delay without condonation. The assessee argued that the delay was not properly assessed and that an opportunity to explain the delay was denied.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026

ITA No.8989/DEL/2025 GANPATHI ENTERPRISES, MUZAFFARNAGAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8989/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S GANPATHI ENTERPRISES, Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, INCOME TAX, Circular Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Muzaffarnagar 251001, Meerut Road, Uttar Pradesh. Muzaffarnagar 251002, PAN No.AAFFG3043C Uttar Pradesh. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 14.07.2026 Pronouncement on 05.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 25.11.2025, passed by NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”).

1.1 In this case, right at the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had not condoned a delay of 70 days in the filing of first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the delay was not condonable due to insufficiency of reasons for the said delay and therefore the discretion available u/s 249(3) of the Act could not be exercised in favour of the assessee.

ITA No.8989/DEL/2025 GANPATHI ENTERPRISES, MUZAFFARNAGAR 2. It was argued by the Ld. AR that as per the calculation of the assessee there was no delay in filing of any appeal since he was calculating the limitation from the date on which the appellate order was received by him. In any case, it was averred that had an opportunity been given to the assessee then there could have been an affidavit stating the reasons for the said delay and since the same was not done, hence, the assessee is now left with no alternative but to pray before the ITAT for restoring the matter back to the file of Ld. AO so that the facts can be thrashed out as there has been a denial of opportunity even at the Ld. AO’s stage.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the facts before us. It is seen that indeed the assessee did not give any reasons in Column 15 of Form 35 for any delay. While this is certainly a failing on the part of the assessee but we are also conscious of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) should have given an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before him. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for allowing the assessee to file a petition explaining the delay and thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) would consider the said petition for condoning the delay and thereafter adjudicating appropriately.

ITA No.8989/DEL/2025 GANPATHI ENTERPRISES, MUZAFFARNAGAR 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →