REETA CHAUHAN,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 1 KARNAL, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 185/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities of hearing. Additionally, regarding the issue under section 115BBE, the Tribunal followed a Madras High Court ruling that the provision applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2017-18 against an order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 404 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps at various levels prevented the assessee from presenting all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps? Whether section 115BBE is applicable to the transactions in question based on its effective date?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 09.02.2026

Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069171558(1), dated 27.09.2024 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.

Delay of 404 days in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and 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 Assessing Officer. 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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

There is yet another substantial issue of assessment under section 115BBE of the Act. Learned counsel quotes S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078

2 | P a g e of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) wherein their lordship has settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE would come into effect on the transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to be assessed under the normal provisions in very terms.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →