JANAK SINGH RAWAT,UTTARKASHI vs. CIT(A), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 152/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2026AY 2014-153 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A)/NFAC and the ITAT, citing reasons like flash floods and the death of the assessee's auditor. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals before the ITAT against the CIT(A)/NFAC's orders. There was a significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC and also before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “DB”, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.152 to 154/DDN/2026 for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2018- 19, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, all dated 01.08.2024, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067233175(1),

ITA Nos.152 to 154/DDN/2026

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067233583(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067233175, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2. We notice at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that not only the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion has refused to condone the assessee’s identical 153 days delay each therein as not properly explained but also the same suffers from 512 days delay each before the tribunal as well. 3. That being the case, learned counsel first of all submits that the aforesaid delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC was on account of flash flood in the State of Uttarakhand and on account of various other reasons. Also that the delay in institution of these three appeals before the tribunal is for the precise reason that his auditor/authorized personnel has left for his heavenly abode. His death certificate is also attached. All these factual averments have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the

2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.152 to 154/DDN/2026

assessee’s identical twin delay(s) i.e. 153 days in institution of the lower appeals and 512 days each herein in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and restore the same back to the learned lower appellate authority for their afresh appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. All the remaining issues between the parties are kept open at this stage. 4. These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.152 to 154/DDN/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th May, 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →