BAINU ANAND AHUJA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 71(4), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 247/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Observing the possibility of communication gaps and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. There was a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear to present their case effectively in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and procedural lapses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

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

Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 10.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079763436(1) dated 20.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 71 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).

4.

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

5.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →