RAVINDER PAL SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 1, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8693/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2016-171 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 noted that the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay due to circumstances beyond their control. Citing the precedent in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal held that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2016-17 against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, which upheld the Assessing Officer's assessment. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone a delay of 184 days in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned to allow for substantial justice, considering the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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, JUDICIAL

Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

Date of hearing 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250 /2025-26/1082246077(1), dated 03.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. 2.

She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 184 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 22.10.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 22.03.2022 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

4.

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.

5.

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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

6.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →