What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 13 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) should be dismissed solely on the ground of delay, or if the delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

Lakhwinder Singh, Faridkot vs ITO | ITAT Amritsar 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH AM, &

Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE BEFORE: SHRI M. BALAGANESH AM, & AM SHRI UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 869/ASR/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Lakhwinder Singh, The ITO, Araian Wala Kalan Ward -1, Faridkot 151203 Faridko �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DJXPS7392A अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh Gopal Krishan Garg, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.07.2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2026 आदेश/Order PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it was brought to our notice that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition and keeping in view the settled proposition that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are satisfied that the

2 863/Asr/2025 assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal in limine only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be restored back to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (ld. ‘CIT(A)’ in short.) 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine only on the ground of delay in filing. We find that the assessee had filed a delay condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A). Considering the reasons adduced thereon, in the interest of substantial justice, we hold that assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee be given reasonable opportunity or being heard. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld. CIT(A) on the date

3 863/Asr/2025 of hearing and cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments except due to bonafide or exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (U. DASGUPTA ) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.07.2026 rkk आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

LAKHWINDER SINGH,FARIDKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, FARIDKOT

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