EMERGENT BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI

ITA 6313/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable. The primary reasons for this decision were the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT (3 days) for which no condonation petition was filed, and the fact that the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's earlier appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a significant delay of 795 days, which the NFAC had not condoned. The Tribunal also observed that the notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved with the remark 'no such firm', and the assessee had not provided an updated address. These factors led the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Emergent Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal arose from an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld an assessment order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), Circle-7(1), Delhi, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT. The appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days, for which no condonation petition was filed. The ITAT noted that the assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 795 days, as the NFAC did not condone the delay. The notice sent to the assessee by the ITAT returned unserved with the remark 'no such firm', and the assessee had not provided an updated address.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT is maintainable, considering the delay in filing and the non-appearance of the assessee. Assessee's contentions: The judgment records no contentions from the assessee. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal and did not file a delay condonation petition. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR, did not explicitly state its contentions regarding the maintainability of the appeal. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural deficiencies and the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, which implicitly aligns with the revenue's position that the appeal should not be entertained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The appeal in ITA No. 6313/Del/2026 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 11.03.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.09.2022 by the Assessing Officer, AO, Circle- 7(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the asses

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →