SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-46(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 492/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 April 2025AY 2021-22Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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, citing Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (SC), held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was not sustainable in law. The impugned lower appellate order was reversed, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, with three effective opportunities for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 against an order passed under Section 143(1). The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone a 32-day delay in filing this appeal, despite the assessee submitting a condonation petition explaining reasons beyond their control.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone a 32-day delay in filing the assessee's appeal, and if such refusal was sustainable in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA
Hearing: 21.04.2025Pronounced: 21.04.2025

Date of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.04.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/APLS/250/2023-24/1061387962(1) dated 23.2.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(1) r.w.s. 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the corresponding delay of 32 days in institution of the assessee’s lower appeal filed on 07.09.2022 against the 2 order u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 05.07.2022. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee had filed his condonation petition explaining all the reasons of the said delay on account of circumstances beyond his control.

4.

All these clinching facts have gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. I therefore quote Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that such a delay ought to have been condoned going by the condonation averments so as to pave way for the adjudication of the corresponding issues on merits, to conclude that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s findings refusing to condone the impugned delay in assessee’s filing of the lower appeal are not sustainable in law. His impugned lower appellate order is accordingly reversed. The assessee’s appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in Open Court on 21.04.2025.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →