SSV ESTATES LLP,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 4433/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, namely the non-receipt of a physical copy of the penalty order and discovering it through the e-portal, were not contradicted by the revenue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delay to do substantial justice. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be a sufficient cause for condoning the 118-day delay. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 60 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee, SSV Estates LLP, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi, dated 27.03.2026. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being barred by limitation, with a delay of 118 days in filing the appeal against a penalty order dated 21.07.2025. The assessee's case was selected under CASS, and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The assessee allegedly failed to reply to a notice u/s 142(1), leading to penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d). A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay, which the assessee claimed was due to not receiving a physical copy of the penalty order and only discovering it when checking the e-portal for outstanding demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in law and facts in refusing to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order, thereby confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the delay was allegedly due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that there was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as mentioned in Form 35, and that the CIT(A)'s dismissal resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The assessee sought restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee failed to explain the delay of 118 days, and the appeal was rightly dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.03.2026 of ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation as the ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal, against the penalty order dated 21.07.2025. 2. Facts in brief as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the case of the assessee was selected under CASS by issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.06.2024 which was allegedly served upon the assessee but the assessee failed to file reply to the notice u/s 2 SSV Esta

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 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →