NEELAM VOHRA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 30 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, stating that the reasons provided were not justifiable.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without considering the reasons provided by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4009/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelam Vohra, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1485, Rani Bagh, Ward-44(1), Shakur Basti, New Delhi Delhi PAN: AEBPV2153G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 03.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085873119(1), dated 11.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned
ITA No.4009/Del/2026
CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 30 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 31.03.2021 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 25.12.2019, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons. 3. Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control. 4. That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC is condoned and the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.4009/Del/2026
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 9th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026