YOGESH THAKRAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(5), DELHI

ITA 7406/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal, citing the decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, which could have prevented the assessee from appearing and presenting their case effectively. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yogesh Thakral, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. JCIT(A)-2, Guwahati. The impugned order was passed in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 107 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The assessee's counsel stated that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear and present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the actions of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's averments regarding communication gaps? (Question of fact turning on procedural fairness) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to communication gaps at various levels, preventing them from appearing and proving relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) for condonation of delay. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the learned lower authorities' action, implying they did not agree with the condonation of delay or the merits of the assessee's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. (VC)

Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. JCIT(A)- 2 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Guwahati’s order dated 22.01.2026, passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1085073195(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Yogesh Thakral

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 107 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the asse

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →