PARDOS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5811/2026HC DelhiDLHC01018485202625 August 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court set aside the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the CIT(A). The Court reasoned that the CIT(A) had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay without considering the application for condonation of delay, which was admittedly filed. The Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after first deciding the application for condonation of delay, and to consider the delay sympathetically. Furthermore, the Court quashed and set aside a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the pendency of the appeal, citing the mandate of Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits passing a penalty order during the pendency of an appeal. The AO was permitted to pass a fresh penalty order if required, in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pardos Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)). The petitioner contended that its appeal against an assessment order dated 23.03.2025 was rejected by the CIT(A) as if no application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been filed. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, initially sought time to respond. Subsequently, the revenue acknowledged that a refund due to the petitioner had been inadvertently recovered and subsequently refunded. Regarding the condonation of delay, the revenue conceded that the application was indeed filed but had escaped the CIT(A)'s attention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal without considering the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the CIT(A) erroneously proceeded as if no application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal, leading to the rejection of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, after verification, admitted that the application for condonation of delay was filed but was overlooked due to inadvertence by the CIT(A). Additionally, the revenue stated that an amount recovered from the petitioner had been refunded due to an inadvertent error, resolving that specific grievance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 275

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010184852026 + W.P.(C) 5811/2026, CM APPL. 28614/2026 & CM APPL. 41048/2026 PARDOS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr. Aniket Khanduri and Mr. Aakarsh Rastogi, Advs. versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC, Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSC for IT Department. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R % 25.08.2026

1.

On 29.04.2026, we had passed the following order:

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that along with the appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee against the assessment order dated 23.03.2025, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed, but while rejecting the appeal vide order dated 17.07.2025, the Appellate Authority has proceeded as if no application under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, leamed senior standing counsel for the respondent-Department prays for and is granted a week's time to complete instructions. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:55

3.

No coercive measures for recovery of the amount pursuant to penalty order dated 28.03.2025 shall be taken till the next date of hearing.

4.

List this case on 12.05.2026.”

2.

Mr. Anant Mann, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that the amount which was recovered from the petitioner, due to inadvertence, has been refunded back to the petitioner by way of physical cheque.

3.

Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner accepted such position and agreed that petitioner’s grievance qua such issue stand resolved.

4.

So far as petitioner’s other contention that the petitioner had filed an application seeking condonation of delay alongwith the appeal is concerned, on verification from the record, Mr. Anant Mann informed that the application was actually filed, which, due to inadvertence, escaped the attention of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’).

5.

Such being the position and considering that the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of delay, we hereby set aside the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the Appellate Authority, for decision afresh in accordance with law.

6.

Before deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall obviously decide the application for condonation of delay, while considering the delay sympathetically.

7.

Since, we have restored the appeal, the penalty order which the Assessing Officer (AO) has passed during the period interregnum, is also This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:55

hereby quashed and set aside, as no penalty order can be passed during the pendency of the appeal, as mandated by Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Needless to observe that the AO shall be free to pass a fresh penalty order (if so required) in accordance with law.

9.

The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 25, 2026/ s This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:57:55

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →