AMIT PAUL,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FECELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) beyond the normal limitation period but within the extended period prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning it.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was within the condonable period as per the Supreme Court's directions. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the Supreme Court's directions on limitation extension.
Sections Cited
143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER M. BALAGANESH, AM
The appeal in ITA No.5088/Del/2024 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 2219.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
ITA No. 5088/Del/2025 Amit Paul
referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 21.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-43(8), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
At the outset, we find that the ld CIT(A) had not condoned the delay in filing of appeal before him by 65 days. In the instant case, the appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) on 05.05.2022 against the assessment order dated 16.07.2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 had observed that if the appeal before any competent authority that were due to be filed during the period 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 and if the said appeal has been filed within 90 days from 01.03.2022, then the said appeal should be construed to have been filed within time. Accordingly, calculating 90 days from 01.03.2022, the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) on 05.05.2022 is well within permitted time and hence, there is no delay at all. Hence, we hold that the ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, raise additional grounds, if any, in support of his contentions before the ld CIT(A). With these observations, the grounds raised
ITA No. 5088/Del/2025 Amit Paul
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2026.
-Sd/- -Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M. BALAGANESH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 17/02/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi
