JITAN KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), , FARIDABAD

ITA 8947/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 January 2026AY 2012-133 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 held that technical aspects must yield to the cause of substantial justice. Quoting the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized that procedural delays should not be a bar to the adjudication of a case on merits when there are justifiable reasons. The CIT(A)/NFAC's refusal to condone the significant delay of 692 days was set aside. The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on its merits. The taxpayer was directed to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The CIT(A)/NFAC was given three effective opportunities to adjudicate the matter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jitan Kumar, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay of 692 days against an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 24.01.2020. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, stating that the reasons provided were not justifiable. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, leading to the proceedings being ex-parte. The Revenue representative did not dispute that the assessee had filed a condonation petition explaining reasons beyond his control, including the Covid-19 outbreak.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 692 days in filing the assessee's appeal, turning on the interpretation of Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the principles of substantial justice. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control, including the Covid-19 outbreak, and that the reasons explained in the condonation petition were justifiable. The assessee relied on the principle laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue representative, while not disputing the facts presented by the assessee regarding the reasons for delay, implicitly supported the CIT(A)/NFAC's decision by not actively arguing for condonation. The judgment records no specific arguments from the Revenue's side beyond acknowledging the assessee's petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 28.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082022777(1), dated 27.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest.

She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 692 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 15.01.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 24.01.2020, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control and Covid-19 outbreak.

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 taxpayer shall plead

2 | P a g e and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →