ROHIT SINGH BOHRA,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 185/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed seven appeals before the ITAT against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The primary issue was the refusal by the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone significant delays in filing the assessee's lower appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the substantial delay in filing appeals without adequately considering the assessee's reasons, particularly medical complications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAC(1),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “ DB ” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Lisha Bansal, CA
For Respondent: DR (Virtual)
Hearing: 29.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “ DB ” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 179 to 185/DDN/2026 Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2013- 14, 2018-19,2018-19 Rohit Singh Bohra, Vs. Income Tax Officer 20/27, Body Guard, Rajpur, Ward-1(1)(3) Dehradun Canal Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248001 PAN:AIUPB4762E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Lisha Bansal, CA Department by Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Date of hearing 29.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 179 to 185/DDN/2026, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, “CIT(A)/NFAC”],Delhi’s as many DINs & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085304690(1), ITBA/ NFAC/ S/ 250/2025-26/1085303488(1), ITBA/ NFAC/ S/ 250/ 2025-26/ 1085251609(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085251909(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085306817(1), ITBA/ NFAC/

ITA No. 179 to 185/Del/2026 S/250/ 2025-26/ 1085252203(1), ITBA/ NFAC/ S/250/ 2025- 26/1085303901(1), involving proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) (A.Y. 2016-17), 271AAC(1) (for A.Y. 2017-18), 147 r.w.s. 144 (for A.Y. 2016-17), 147 r.w.s 144 (for A.Y. 2017-18), 147 r.w.s. 144 (for A.Y. 2013-14), 147 r.w.s. 144 (for A.Y. 2018-19), 271AAC(1) (for A.Y. 2018-19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s identical detailed discussion has refused to condone 530 days, 494 days, 801 days, 791 days, 794 days, 858 days, 684 days; delay in institution of the assessee’s lower appeals against the Assessing Officer’s corresponding orders; be it the penalties or the assessments herein, passed on various dates.

3.

That being the case, the Revenue vehemently submits that we ought to uphold the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion refusing to condone the assessee’s foregoing delay(s) in institution of all of his lower appeal cases for want of any justifiable reasons thereof. It could hardly dispute that going by the identical findings in the lower appellate discussion; take for instance in Para 5.4 in

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 179 to 185/Del/2026 ITA No. 179/DDN/2026; thus appeared some serious medical complications whose supportive evidence(s) also formed part of the lower appellate records. Learned CIT(A)/NFAC further concludes that there is no indication as to whether the assessee’s aforesaid medical issues had incapacitated him in instituting the lower appeals or not. We are of the considered view that such an approach could hardly deserves to be concurred with once the assessee’s detailed reasons seeking condonation of delay due to medical complications have gone unrebutted in principle. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for call substantial justice as well.

4.

We thus find merit in the assessee’s identical first and foremost ground and reverse the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s respective orders under challenge to the very effect. These assessee’s seven cases are hereby restored back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication on merits going by section 250(6) of the Act subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove his case within three effective opportunities of hearing at his own risk and responsibility. 3 | P a g e

ITA No. 179 to 185/Del/2026

All other remaining issues between the parties are kept open at this stage.

4.

These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 179 to 185/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:29.05.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →