GAGANDEEP SINGH S/O SH SOHAN SINGH STREET NO 1 PATEL NAGAR PHAGWARA ,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PHAGWARA CR BUILDING G T ROAD PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

ITA 974/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 July 2026AY 2012-20133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine solely on the ground of delay in filing. The assessee had filed a delay condonation petition before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by sufficient reason and if the appeal should be admitted for adjudication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH AM, &

For Respondent: Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. 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.)

2 974/Asr/2025

3.

On the other hand, ld.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →