SANDEEP GULATI,EAST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 5134/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and adhering to the principles of natural justice, where substantial law ought to prevail over procedural lapses, the assessee should be given one more opportunity. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had furnished an affidavit detailing the reasons for the delay, citing the serious illness and death of their CA. The Tribunal found that the substantial law should prevail over procedural lapses, a principle reiterated by various rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the matter on its merits. The assessee was directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without undue delay. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sandeep Gulati, filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] on October 14, 2025, against an order passed by the CPC, Bengaluru under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated August 1, 2024, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was initially filed with a delay of 409 days. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning this delay, stating the assessee failed to substantiate a 'sufficient cause'. The assessee challenged this order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order without granting condonation of delay and without calling for supporting evidence for the condonation? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay of 409 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to the serious illness and subsequent death of the assessee's Chartered Accountant, Shri Mohan Agarwal. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, and the assessee had bona fide reasons. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay and an opportunity to present the case on merits. Revenue's contentions: The Department's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) vehemently opposed condoning the delay and providing the assessee with another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 250,Section 246(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv. &, Ms Mugda Chatterjee, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, DR 03.09.2026
Pronounced: 03.09.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ground No. 1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making an Order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by disposing of the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the 2 Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A

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 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →