ILD HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 704/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 April 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to consider the cause of delay and, if reasonable, condone it. The CIT(A) was also instructed to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay without providing an opportunity to explain the cause of delay. The CIT(A) also did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case before deeming the appeal not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without affording an opportunity to the assessee and without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshita, Adv
Hearing: 29/04/2026Pronounced: 30/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 704/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

ILD HOUSING PROJECTS COMMISSIONER OF PRIVATE LIMITED, Vs INCOME TAX (APPEALS), B-418, F/F, NEW FRIENDS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, COLONY, NEW DELHI – 25 NEW DELHI PAN: AABCI5518F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Ms. Lakshita, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing: 29/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 30/04/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A), Delhi (In short “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 10-12-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal : 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing / not admitting the appeal of the assessee without according any opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the condonation for delay in filing the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal as not maintainable by not even looking into the facts and

circumstances of the case and against the provisions of section 249 of the Act. 4. That the actions of the Ld. CIT(A) shall result in confirming the arbitrary order of the AO wherein additions amounting to Rs. 15,04,55,596/- have been made via a rectification order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act which is completely against the provisions of law. 5. That the appellate order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing / not admitting the appeal of the assessee without according any opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also erred in not allowing condonation for delay in filing the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal as not maintainable by not even looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and against the provisions of section 249 of the Act. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the records. We find that it is an admitted fact that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed / not admitting the appeal of the assessee without according any opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by not condoning the delay. It is noted that it was the contention of the ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal as not maintainable by not even looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and against the provisions of section 249 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem fit proper to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to look into

the cause of delay and if the reasonable cause for delay has been attributed to the assessee, then delay in dispute be condoned and issues on merits may be decided in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and prove the reasonable cause before him for filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as canvass the case on merits also. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SR BHATNAGGAR Date:- 30.04.2026

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →