VIPIN KUMAR ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHARKHI DADRI , HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 807/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against assessment and penalty orders, but these were delayed. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being in judicial custody. The NFAC rejected the condonation of delay, finding the reasons insufficient.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's imprisonment constituted a sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the NFAC. Whether the NFAC erred in not condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

These appeals preferred by the assessee against the common order of

the Ld. NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority

or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the order of the

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 806 to 810/Del/2026 Vipin Kumar (AYs: 2013-14 & 2015-16)

ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed

u/s 147/144/144B/271B/271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter

referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities

are as under:

ITA No. Ld. FAA who Appeal No. & Date of order of AO who passed the & AY passed the appellate the Ld. FAA assessment order & order Date of order 806/D/26 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : National Faceless 2013-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Assessment Centre, 26/1082501048(1) Delhi Dated: 11.11.2025 Dated 17.01.2022 807/D/26 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : National Faceless 2013-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Assessment Centre, 26/1082498781(1) Delhi Dated: 11.11.2025 Dated 23.09.2021 808/D/26 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : National Faceless 2013-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Assessment Centre, 26/1082499892(1) Delhi Dated 11.11.2025 Dated 21.01.2022 809/D/26 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : National Faceless 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Assessment Centre, 26/1082500636(1) Delhi Dated 11.11.2025 Dated 27.09.2022 810/D/26 NFAC, Delhi DIN & Order No : National Faceless 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- Assessment Centre, 26/1082499494(1) Delhi Dated 11.11.2025 Dated 29.03.2022

2.

On hearing both sides we find that ITA 807/Del/2026 is the appeal

arising out of quantum assessment concluded u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act and

the remaining appeals are against the penalty orders and the impugned order

of ld. CIT(A) shows that assessee had claimed in Form 35 that the assessment

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 806 to 810/Del/2026 Vipin Kumar (AYs: 2013-14 & 2015-16) order was though dated 23.09.2021, however, as assessee was under some

judicial custody in a criminal case from 19.07.2021 to 05.12.2022, the appeal

could not be filed in the limitation period.

3.

However, NFAC was not satisfied with the reason for delay and

concluded that this was not a sufficient cause. In fact, NFAC records that

except for an affidavit, the assessee has not filed copy of FIR or Court orders

to substantiate his claim of imprisonment. NFAC also record the appeal was

filed on 25.02.2023 after 82 days of release from imprisonment and there was

no valid reasons for delay in filing of the appeals and condonation of delay

from 06.12.2022 to 25.02.2023.

4.

We are of the considered view that though there may have been some

laxity on the part of the assessee for not following the assessment

proceedings while being in imprisonment or thereafter once release on

05.12.2022 but at the same time to conclude that it was not a sufficient cause

to condone the delay would be too harsh a conclusion as while being custody

and immediately thereafter assessee may have had restricted resources and

communication means to file appeal against the assessment order.

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 806 to 810/Del/2026 Vipin Kumar (AYs: 2013-14 & 2015-16) 5. Thus, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders and direct

NFAC/CIT(A) to condone the delay before itself and give assessee a fresh

opportunity to contest on merits as well as question of law, if any involved.

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with a consequence to follow

as above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 20.05.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →