SANJAY KUMAR,DELHI vs. WARD 58(7) DELHI, VIKAS BHAWAN, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 259/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the latter order refusing to condone the delay was a nullity as it was a duplicate and passed subsequent to an order that was already in effect. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order that refused to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal. This order was passed after a previous order had already allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed after a previous effective order on the same matter, which is essentially a duplicate, is valid. The validity of an order that refuses to condone a substantial delay in filing an appeal when a prior order has already been passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 23.04.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, 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/250/2025-26/1083164885(1), dated 01.12.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.259/Del/2026 Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee/appellant instant appeal involves a very peculiar set of facts. This is for the precise reason that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC had passed his former order dated 08.01.2025, allowing the assessee’s lower appeal for statistical purposes thereby remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act; as amended vide a Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.12.2024, whereas his latter order under challenge herein dated 01.12.2025 has refused to condone 1003 days delay in institution thereof which forms subject matter of challenge before us.

3.

This being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s impugned latter order dated 01.12.2025 is a nullity only being a duplicate one. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. We further make it clear as a matter of abundant caution that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s former order dated 08.01.2025 very much holds the field as on date and the learned Assessing Officer shall proceed as per law in compliance thereto.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.259/Del/2026 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12.05.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →