KAMALDEEP SINGH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 866 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Regarding the main issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged that in such situations, communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor, and counsel could occur. 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 to the assessee, subject to the condition that the taxpayer would plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sh. Kamaldeep Singh, filed an appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC's order, dated 04.10.2023, affirmed the Assessing Officer's actions under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 866 days, which was condoned. During the ITAT hearing, the assessee was absent and proceeded ex-parte. The NFAC had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee in its appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 866 days in filing the appeal? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the ITAT should restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, given that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee? Assessee's contentions: None recorded as the assessee was absent and proceeded ex-parte. Revenue's contentions: The learned Sr. DR argued in support of the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence to support his case. The revenue relied on the CIT(A)'s order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056779074(1), dated 04.10.2023 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2
For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 866 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its detailed discussion ha
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.
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
