SUMER MEMORIAL RURAL WELFARE SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD. GHAZIABAD, GHAZAIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 189/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2026AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI 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 acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings, and found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order that involved proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 222 days in filing the appeal, which the tribunal considered condoning in the larger interest of justice. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps at various levels prevented them from presenting all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Coimbatore’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074980986(1), dated 25.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 222 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th February, 2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →