What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 273 days. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of over 2017 days.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT should be condoned to allow the assessee to contest the case on merits.

Rohit Gulati, Himachal Pradesh… vs Dc/Ac Circle 3(1), Gurugram | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore

Hearing: 03.06.2026Pronounced: 24.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.2245/Del/2026 Rohit Gulati (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2245/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Rohit Gulati Vs. DC/AC Circle 3(1) Village Koti (Chakki Mor) Aaykar Bhawan, Sector- Post office Jabli, Tehsil 29, Near IFFCO Chowk, Kasauli, District- Solan, Gurugram Haryana, Himachal Pradesh Gurgaon – 122001 173209 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADRPG3605J Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Manish Yadav, Adv. Sh. Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 03.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2025 of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Visakhapatanam (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN &

P a g e | 2 ITA No.2245/Del/2026 Rohit Gulati (AY: 2017-18) Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074363748(1) arising out of the order dated 31.06.2018 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY: 2017-18.

On hearing both sides we find that there was a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and at the same time we find that the appeal of the assesse were dismissed by ld. CIT(A) as there was a delay of over 2017 days in filing the appeal.

Ld. DR has vehemently relied the impugned order and findings. Ld. AR has submitted that identical issue for AY: 2012-13 & 2015-16, relating to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC/80IB were decided against the assessee and the appeal proceedings were pending before the Ld. Tax authorities wherein substantial resources of the assesse were consumed and there was a demand of over Rs.1 crores for AY: 2012-13. Thus, assesse being a non-resident was unable to pursue its case in India for want of resources. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that out of 10 years from AY: 2010-11 to 2019-20 deduction was allowed by CPC for 8 years.

After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as pointed out we consider it appropriate case where assesse be given an opportunity to contest on merit, but subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the

P a g e | 3 ITA No.2245/Del/2026 Rohit Gulati (AY: 2017-18) appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the issue on merits as well as law are restore to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assesse to decide the appeal afresh. The assesse shall deposit Rs.10,000/-with Prime Minister Relief Fund and deposit the challan of the same before the ld. CIT(A) in a period of 90 days.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 24.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

ROHIT GULATI,HIMACHAL PRADESH, INDIA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 3(1), GURUGRAM

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