KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 18, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2791/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee a chance to justify the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, citing gross negligence and a casual attitude from the assessee. The assessee argued that they were not given an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 05.08.2026Pronounced: 05.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T A. No.2791/Del/2026 (A.Y 2013-14) Khemka Stuart Leisure DCIT/ACIT Central Vs. Circle-18 Limited, Office No.202, Delhi Second Floor, Kh. No.53, Plot No.30, Hasanpur, New Delhi PAN No.AAACK4630P

Appellant by: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, CA Respondent by : Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-27, Delhi for the A.Y. 2013-14. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1 | P a g e

1.

The Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-27 erred as per settled law of Ist Appeal and not considering fact for condoning delay in filing Appeal. 2. That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 3. That the Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order dated 12.02.2026 in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was admittedly pending before the Honble CIT(A), in terms of the directions issued by the Honble ITAT, Delhi Bench C vide its order dated 13.10.2021. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have awaited the outcome of the quantum proceedings. 4. The Honble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-27 has not followed the law of natural justice while confirming Penalty of Rs. 77,90,037/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing Officer. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal.

2.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3.

Per contra the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly mentioned in his order that there is a delay of 1562 days in filing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken it as gross negligence of the assessee with casual attitude and scant regard for the law. 2 | P a g e

Therefore, he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay.

4.

The Ld. Counsel of the assessee made a prayer before the bench that natural justice demands that the assessee should be heard and should be given an opportunity to file required details and documents for proper adjudication.

5.

In this case the ld. CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal.

6.

We have considered the findings and reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order for not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We are of this considered view that natural justice demands that before taking any decision about an assessee he should be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we feel that the Ld. CIT(A) should given an opportunity to the assessee to justify or to prove the genuineness and reasons for delay in filing of the appeal, therefore, in order to verify the genuineness of the reasons for delay in filing of this appeal the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee should be 3 | P a g e

provided adequate opportunity of being heard under law. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.08.2026.

SD

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated :10/08/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →