CLARKS FUTURE FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 73(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1819/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 July 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously rejected the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for delay in filing. The assessee cited Covid-19 lockdown as the reason for the delay, but the CIT(A) rejected this explanation due to the availability of e-filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal due to Covid-19 lockdown was sufficiently explained and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWATHI

Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1819/Del/2026 Clarks Future Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWATHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1819/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Clarks Future Footwear Vs. ACIT, TDS Circle 73(1) Room No. 411, 4th Floor, Private Limited, A-202, Fulcrum Business Aayakar Bhavan, District Centre, Sahar Road, Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Andheri, Mumbai New Delhi – 110092 Maharashtra – 400099 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAECC1075G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Yash Mehta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 13.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.12.2025 of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) Panaji (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084012501(1) arising out of the order dated

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1819/Del/2026 Clarks Future Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) 09.03.2021 u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT, Circle 73(1) Delhi, for AY: 2013-14.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that among other grounds of merits assesse has raised ground that assesse was not given opportunity of hearing. Ld. Counsel has submitted that notices were not issued and also the delay was duly explained but the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

3.

On going through the impugned order we find that in para 5 NFAC mentions of the fact of notice being issued and there upon NFAC proceeds to decide the merits and ultimately in para 7 dismiss the appeal for delay in filing of the appeal. NFAC discusses all the reason cited in Form 35 that due to Covid-19 period there was delay in filing of the appeal. However, this aspect was not found reliable as there was no affidavit filed and it was observed that impugned order was passed on 09.03.2021 and the entire period was not under lockdown and e-filing portal was available.

4.

We are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances that assesse was supposed to file appeal with the help of professional and its employees, so plea for delay in filing appeal on the basis of Covid lockdown could not be rejected for reasons of availability of e-filing option. Ld.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1819/Del/2026 Clarks Future Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) CIT(A) thus erroneously held that the reasons for delay are not sufficiently explained.

5.

In the light of aforesaid we set aside the impugned order. The delay in filing of appeal is condoned. The issue on merits as well as law are restored to files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing and pass order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 15.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →