SH. SURESH CHAND,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(3), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back. The assessee is granted liberty to file a condonation application before the CIT(A), who will then decide it in accordance with the law.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 288 days without filing a condonation application. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The assessee contended that there was a reasonable cause for the delay and that they were not given an opportunity to explain it.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without condoning it or providing an opportunity to explain the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.628/DEL/2026 ( A.Y 2017-18) ITANo. 629/DEL/2026 ( A.Y 2017-18) Sh. Suresh Chand Vs ITO 274, Village Makanpur, Ward-2(2)(3), Indrapuram, Ghaziabad (U.P) CGO Complex-1, HapurChungi 201014 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradessh PAN: BBYPC9661F (RESPONDENT) (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. Deepanshu Agarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Ajay KumarArora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2026
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal
Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 17/11/2025 for
the Assessment Year 2017-18.
ITA No.628/DEL/2026 ( A.Y 2017-18) (Quantum)
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment orders came to be
passed on 30/03/2022 u/s147 r.w. Section 144 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain addition. Aggrieved by the
assessment orders, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)
with a delay of 288 days in filing the First Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) vide
order impugned dated 30/03/2022, dismissed the First Appeal
without condoning the above delays in filing the Appeal as there was
no application for condonation of delay filed by the Assessee. The
Assessee aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), preferred the
captioned Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, though there
was a reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, the
Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal on delay in latches, thus sought for
condoning the delay and allowing the present Appeal.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that
the Assessee has not filed any application to condone the inordinate
delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), since there
is no sufficient cause explained to condone the delay in filing the
Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal filed by
the Assessee on delay in laches, thus, sought for dismissal of the
present Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material
available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay as the
Assessee has not field the application for condonation of delay,
accordingly dismissed the quantum Appeal. It is the case of the
Assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given opportunity of being heard
to the Assessee to explain the delay. Considering the above facts and
circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and
remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a liberty to the
Assessee to explain the delay in filing the Appeal before the CIT(A) by
way of application for condonation of delay and if such application is
filed the CIT(A) is directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
All the contention of the Assessee are kept open.
In the result appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.628/DEL/2026 is
partly allowed for statistical purpose.
ITANo. 629/DEL/2026 ( A.Y 2017-18) 7. The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal
Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 18/11/2025 for
the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Since, we have restored the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A)
and the result of the quantum appeal will be havingthebearing on the
penalty, the issue involved in the present penalty Appeal is also restored to
the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh with liberty to the
Assessee to raise all the contentions before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.629/DEL/2026 is 9.
allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 27th Day of April, 2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY AWASTHI) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/04/2026 R. Naheed *
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026