RAMESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA , AMBALA,AMBALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(3) NEW DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 AMBALA, AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 45/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2026AY 2011-20123 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 of 3133 days in filing the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal reasoned that in the larger interest of justice and in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the delay should be condoned. The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the assessee's appeal on merits, taking into account the additional evidence filed by the assessee and complying with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication. All other remaining issues between the parties were kept open. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 against an order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was filed with a delay of 3133 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay. The assessee contended that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which should have been excluded as per the Supreme Court's decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, was not considered. The Revenue did not rebut the assessee's condonation petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 3133 days in filing the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control and the exclusion of the COVID-19 period as per the Supreme Court's decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control and that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should be excluded for the purpose of limitation, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). The assessee also submitted a detailed condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay, which went unrebutted by the Revenue. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 2011-12, 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/250/2025-26/1082436686(1), dated 10.11.2025, 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.

It transpires at the outset during the course hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 3133 days in filing the asessee’s lower appeal instituted on 26.11.2022 against the Assessing Officer order dated 30.03.2014.

3.

That being the case, learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attentions to the fact that the CIT(A)/NFAC has not even considered Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, already stands excluded for all intents and purposes, as per hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). This is stated to be indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee has filed his detailed condontion petition explaining reasons thereof as on account of circumstances beyond control which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

4.

I therefore deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the assessee’s impugned delay of 3133 days in filing of his lower appeal is condoned. Ordered accordingly. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to decide the assessee’s lower appeal on merits keeping in mind his additional evidence as well as in compliance to section 250(6) of the Act

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →