SATINDER KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 43(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 8593/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2022-233 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 19 days in filing the assessee's appeal, citing the larger interest of justice and the precedent set in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps at various levels. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Satinder Kaur, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The impugned order was passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 19 days. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the action of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice, considering the precedent in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that due to communication gaps at various levels, they were unable to appear and present all facts in the lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the action of the learned lower authorities in making additions on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

Date of hearing 21.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2022-23, 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/250/2025-26/1080914806(1), dated 19.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Delay of 19 days in filing of 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).

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, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits. 3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance 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 CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →