UMAXE PROJECT,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being filed 9 days late. The assessee claimed the delay was due to technical glitches in the e-filing portal and requested the matter be restored for adjudication on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 22.01.2026 arising out of assessment order dated 17.01.2025 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Prakash Sinha, informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B dated 17.01.2025 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay of 09 days and for which it had justified grounds. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had tried to justify the delay also on account of technical glitches in the Income-tax e-filing portal, which were beyond the control of the assessee. It was argued that the CIT(A) has not given any decision on the merits of the case. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication on its merits by condoning the delay and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not tender any serious objection to the proposal. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte. 4. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assessee as to why it could not file its appeal in time, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 09 days in filing of appeal in this case and for re- adjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assessee and to pass a speaking order. The assessee shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assessee side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter de novo in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.06.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,
Date of dictation directly on computer of the Tribunal order 25.06.2026 2. Date on which typed draft order is placed before the dictating 25.06.2026 Member 3 Date on which typed draft order is placed before the other 25.06.2026 Member (in the case of DB) 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to P.S/Sr.P.S 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member for sign ( in the case of DB) 7. Date on which the Order comes back to P.S./Sr.P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which order goes for xerox 11. Date on which order goes for endorsement 12. Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15. Date of dispatch of order 16. Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026