ANIL KUMAR HUF,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 28(5), DELHI

ITA 7416/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 472 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, which could have prevented the assessee from effectively presenting their case. 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 NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anil Kumar HUF, 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 was passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee faced a delay of 472 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that communication gaps prevented them from appearing and presenting their case effectively before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the actions of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee's appeal, filed with a delay of 472 days, should be admitted for hearing, considering the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and relevant judicial precedents? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to communication gaps at various levels and sought condonation, relying on the precedent of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The assessee also submitted that these communication gaps led to their inability to appear and prove relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings, requesting the matter be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the learned lower authorities' action and the additions made on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: 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/250/2024-25/1072333409(1), dated 20.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 472 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Learned counsel submits that on account of communi

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →