HEERA RICE MILLS,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,KARNAL, KARNAL

ITA 6613/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals. The reasoning was that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The Tribunal noted the reasons cited for the delay, including the critical illness of the proprietor's brother, supported by medical evidence. It was also observed that the assessee had failed to appear before the NFAC, likely for the same reasons. The Tribunal directed that the appeals be allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues on merits and law be restored to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to send notices to the email address provided in Form 35, which was similar to the one in Form 36. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Heera Rice Mills, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, against orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. These NFAC orders were in appeal against the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment years under consideration are 2016-17 and 2017-18. The appeals were filed with a delay of 439 days. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the respondent (Revenue) was represented by Ms. Megha Sidhu, Sr. DR. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, citing a critical illness suffered by the brother of the appellant proprietor, supported by medical evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the Revenue's contentions and the assessee's non-appearance before the lower appellate authority. The assessee argued that the delay was due to a critical illness of the proprietor's brother, supported by medical evidence. The Revenue did not explicitly record arguments against condonation in the judgment. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had issued four notices via ITBA/email, to which the assessee did not respond, and that the assessee also failed to appear before the NFAC for similar reasons. The Tribunal also observed that the email address was provided in Form 35 but there was no confirmation of notice service solely via email.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him

ITA 6613 & 6614/DEL/2026 HEERA RICE MILLS

against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3)/147of the Income-tax Act, 1961

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 →