PREM RATAN JOSHI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 58(7), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9013/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the assessee's appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized that technical aspects should yield to the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to consider the appeal within three effective opportunities, with the rider that the taxpayer would plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Prem Ratan Joshi, filed an appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC), Delhi. The CIT(A)/NFAC had refused to condone the delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal, which was filed on 21.06.2025 against an assessment order dated 10.02.2025. The CIT(A)/NFAC held that the delay was not explained by justifiable reasons. The proceedings before the Assessing Officer were under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18, despite the assessee providing reasons for the delay? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that they had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC, explaining all the reasons for the delay, which were due to circumstances beyond their control. Revenue's Contention: The learned departmental representative could hardly dispute the assessee's submission regarding the filing of the condonation petition and the reasons provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

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 & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081755322(1), dated 14.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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 in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 21.06.2025 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 10.02.2025, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →