GULSHAN KUKREJA,DEHRADUN vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure justice, acknowledging potential communication issues with virtual hearings.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2013-14 after a significant delay. The assessee claimed communication gaps prevented them from presenting all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to communication gaps and the assessee's inability to present all facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2023-24/1057494031(1), dated 30.10.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
ITA No.141/DDN/2026
2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 2580 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings; and; therefore, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for her afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the
2 | P a g e
ITA No.141/DDN/2026
appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 5th June, 2026. RK/- 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 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026