MOHD KHALID,SAMBHAL vs. ITO WARD 1(5), SAMBHAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3874/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the explanation for the delay did not appear malafide and that the assessee had not gained anything by the delay. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 946 days, claiming non-receipt of the assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to non-receipt of the order. Whether the appeal was maintainable despite the significant delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kumar Rastogi, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 25.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3874/Del/2026, A.Y. 2018-19 Mohd Khalid Vs. Assessment Unit, Dera Sarai Near Chakki Income Tax Department Sambhal ITO, Ward 1(5), Uttar Pradesh Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: DMAPK4783B Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Shri Piyush Kumar Rastogi, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 11.03.2026 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) of

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3874/Del/2026 Mohd. Khalid the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] arising out of assessment order dated 20.03.2023.

2.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed application for condonation of delay of 946 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was due to non-receipt of order. An affidavit regarding the same was filed before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

4.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11.03.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 946 days in filing appeal due to non-receipt of order. The explanation of non-receipt of order does not smack of malafide as appellant has not gain anything by not filing appeal earlier.

5.

In view of above material facts, in interest of justice, impugned orders dated 11.03.2026 of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, the delay of 946 days in filing appeal is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3874/Del/2026 Mohd. Khalid

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:07.07.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →