SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,SANGRUR vs. ITO WARD SANGUR, SANGRUR

ITA 729/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technicalities or procedural lapses should not impede substantial justice, provided there is no deliberate inaction or mala fide intent. Considering the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 608 days. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the quantum assessment was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This restoration was made subject to a nominal cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee to the Poor Patient Relief Fund of PGI Hospital, Chandigarh within 30 days. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the assessment proceedings. The penalty appeal, being consequential, was also restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in light of the outcome of the quantum assessment. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services, filed two appeals for Assessment Year 2012-13 against orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). One appeal (ITA No.729/Chandi/2026) concerned a quantum assessment order dated 29.11.2019, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein an addition of Rs.79,28,130/- was made under Section 69A. The second appeal (ITA No.1303/Chd/2026) related to a consequential penalty order dated 19.02.2022, for Rs.24,49,792/- under Section 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.03.2026. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal in limine due to a delay of 608 days in filing, without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 608 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2012-13, thereby allowing the assessee to pursue the quantum assessment on merits? (Question of procedure and substantial justice) Assessee's Contention: The delay was unintentional and due to bona fide reasons. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of substantial justice, restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on merits, and submitted that it could substantiate its case with documentary evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and restoration of the matter to the AO, contending that the assessee was dilatory in pursuing its remedies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT – Ld. Sr. DR
Pronounced: 01.10.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.729/CHANDI/2026
ITA No.1303/CHANDI/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

These two inter-connected appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 are directed against separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. CIT(A)']. ITA

No.729/Chandi/2026 relates to the qu

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 →