What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

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 delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Shahid Ali vs DCIT | s.143(3) | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2710/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shahid Ali, Vs. DCIT, F-7, Gaffar Manzil Extn., Circle -61(1), Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi Delhi PAN: AFHPA0001K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, AR Department by Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 02.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2024-25/1065860269(1), dated 20.06.2024 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.

ITA No.2710/Del/2026

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 30 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 22.09.2021 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 04.06.2021, 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, we 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 its afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall

2 | P a g e

ITA No.2710/Del/2026

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. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 6th 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

SHAHID ALI,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

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