HEERA RICE MILLS,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARNAL, KARNAL

ITA 6598/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The reasoning was that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee cited a critical illness of the proprietor's brother as the reason for the delay, supported by medical evidence. It also observed that the assessee failed to appear before the NFAC for similar reasons, despite notices being sent via ITBA/email. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issues on merits and law to the file of the NFAC. The operative direction was to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing before the NFAC and to ensure that notices are sent to the email address provided in Form 35 and Form 36. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Heera Rice Mills, filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. These orders were passed by the NFAC, which acted as the first appellate authority, against the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals before the ITAT were filed approximately 438 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing a critical illness suffered by the brother of the appellant proprietor, supported by medical evidence. The NFAC had previously issued four notices to the assessee via ITBA/email, but no response was received, leading to the assessee's absence before the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the procedural history. This is a question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of principles for condonation of delay under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was attributable to a critical illness of the proprietor's brother, supported by medical evidence, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, CIT, DR, did not explicitly record arguments regarding the condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal noted that after hearing the ld. DR, no further notice was deemed justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3)/147of t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →