BAL KALYAN SAMITI SAHIBABAD,GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7191/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps between the taxpayer and counsel due to the newly introduced faceless hearings system, the Tribunal, in the larger interest of justice, decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case at its own risk and responsibility within three effective opportunities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bal Kalyan Samiti, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances and additions. The appeal was filed with a delay of 4 days, which the Tribunal condoned. A key fact is that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal, considering the precedent set in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)? - Assessee's contention: The delay was attributable to circumstances warranting condonation. - Revenue's contention: The learned DR argued in support of the CIT(A)'s finding, stating the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence, and therefore, the appeal deserved to be dismissed. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC should be set aside and the appeal restored for fresh adjudication, given the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless assessment system? - Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implied by the appeal being filed and the Tribunal's reasoning. - Revenue's contention: The learned DR argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence, supporting the CIT(A)'s ex-parte decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI BENCH: SMC BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 7191/DEL/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) BAL KALYAN SAMITI ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SAHIBABAD GHAZIABAD 8/304, SECTOR-3, RAJENDRA CGO COMPLEX-II, PURANI NAGAR, SAHIBABAD, Vs. HAPUR CHUNGI, GHAZIABAD-201005, UTTAR GHAZIABAD-201009, UTTAR PRADESH PRADESH अपीलाथ� / Appellant ��थ� / Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AABAB 0128 J

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh. Jain Pal Jain, CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 03-Sep-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 03-Sep-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], order no. and DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087458945(1), dated 17.03.2026 involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused

ITA 7191/DEL/2026 BAL KALYAN SAMITI SAHIBABAD

2.

For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 4 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s in its lower appellate order has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein. 4. Learned DR vehemently argues during the course of hearing in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case and therefore, his instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and are of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer and the arguing counsel involving the newly introduced system of faceless hearings, could not be altogether ruled out. 6. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate, in the larger interest of justice, to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC 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. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2026.

Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 07.10.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS*

ITA 7191/DEL/2026 BAL KALYAN SAMITI SAHIBABAD

Copy to: BAL KALYAN SAMITI SAHIBABAD, 8/304, SECTOR-3, RAJENDRA NAGAR, 1 SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD-201005, UTTAR PRADESH

EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD, CGO COMPLEX-II, PURANI HAPUR 2 CHUNGI, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD-201009, UTTAR PRADESH

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 →