BHARAT RATAN GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 68(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3036/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technical aspects must yield to the cause of substantial justice, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Consequently, the delay of 379 days and 72 days in filing the assessee's appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC was condoned. The assessee's appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal stipulated that this fresh adjudication should occur within three effective opportunities, with the rider that the taxpayer would plead and prove his case at his own risk and responsibility. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bharat Ratan Gupta, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 3036 & 3037/Del/2026) for assessment year 2017-18 against orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 22.01.2026. These orders stemmed from proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 and section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue before the Tribunal was the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone significant delays of 379 days and 72 days in the filing of the assessee's lower appeals. These lower appeals were filed on 01.07.2024 against assessment orders dated 19.05.2023 and 21.03.2024. The CIT(A) had held that the delay was not explained by justifiable reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC, when the CIT(A) has refused to condone such delay on the grounds of insufficient explanation, thereby affecting substantial justice. Assessee's Contention: The assessee had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A) explaining all the reasons for the delay, attributing them to circumstances beyond his control. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A) explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the Revenue against condonation, other than implicitly supporting the CIT(A)'s initial decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Bhogendra Prasad, Sr. DR

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.3036 & 3037/Del/2026 for assessment year 2017-18, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 22.01.2026, having DINs and orders nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085047503(1) & 1085054947(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

ITA 3036 & 3037/DEL/2026 BHARAT RATAN GUPTA

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 379 days and 72 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeals both instituted on 01.07.2024 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 19.05.2023 and 21.03.2024; respectively, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons. 3. Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A) explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control. 4. That being the case, we hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay caused in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A) is condoned and the assessee’s instant appeals are restored back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.3036 & 3037/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- NAVEEN CHANDRA SATBEER SINGH GODARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated : 12th October, 2026 RK/- Copy to: BHARAT RATAN GUPTA ITO, WARD 68(5) A-12, SWARAN SINGH ROAD , ADARSH ITO, WARD 68(5) NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110033, DELHI DELHI-, DELHI

ITA 3036 & 3037/DEL/2026 BHARAT RATAN GUPTA

2 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →