SANGEETA KESARWANI,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 4434/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) were sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that no contrary material was brought on record by the revenue to dispute the assessee's explanation. 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 in condoning delays to enable substantial justice. The Tribunal found that refusing to condone the delay could lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order, condoned the delay of 117 days, and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh after giving effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 60 days of the order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sangeeta Kesarwani, is in appeal against the order dated 27.03.2026 of the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against a penalty order dated 21.07.2025, on the grounds that it was barred by limitation due to a delay of 117 days. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1). The assessee's case was selected under CASS, and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 19.06.2024. The assessee allegedly failed to reply to the notice under Section 142(1), despite which penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order dated 21.07.2025, thereby dismissing the appeal, contrary to the facts and law, and whether the reasons for non-compliance were beyond the assessee's control, as per Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as mentioned in Form 35, and that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The assessee contended that condoning the delay and restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits would meet the ends of justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to explain the delay of 117 days and that the appeal was rightly dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 117 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 Sang

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) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →