PULKIT KUMAR DAHIYA,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-3(3) GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 3661/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 October 2026AY 2017-20183 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 305 days in filing the appeal, relying on 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 in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) 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, with the operative direction being a remand to the CIT(A). No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pulkit Kumar Dahiya, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal was filed with a delay of 305 days. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps during the virtual hearing proceedings, they were unable to present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the additions made by the lower authority on merits. The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 305 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's averments regarding communication gaps in the lower appellate proceedings? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that communication gaps at various levels prevented them from appearing and presenting all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings, and therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A). The assessee relied on the precedent of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) for condonation of delay. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the learned lower authority's action and the additions made on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in

ITA 3661/DEL/2026 PULKIT KUMAR DAHIYA

short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1074326397(1), dated 11.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 305 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings; and; therefore, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A). The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA 3661/DEL/2026 PULKIT KUMAR DAHIYA

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- MANISH AGARWAL SATBEER SINGH GODARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 15th October, 2026 RK/- Copy to: PULKIT KUMAR DAHIYA ITO, WARD-3(3) GURGAON FLAT NO 1406, TOWER S-4, M3M HSIIDC BUILDING, VANIJYA MARINA SECTOR 68 GURGAON NIKUNJ, UDHYOG VIHAR, (HR), GURGAON-122001, HARYANA PHASE-V, GURGAON GURGAON-122001, HARYANA 1

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →