Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2012-13 against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which arose from proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144. The appeal was filed with a delay of 3 years and 11 months, which the CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, and if so, the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078546788(1) dated 16.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 105 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 3 years and Braham Prakash 11 months in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 12.10.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 27.11.2019 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.
Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.
That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice and 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 assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.