KHALID ALI,RAMPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), RAMPUR, RAMPUR, UTTAR PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8630/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2018-193 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 the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which established that technical aspects must give way to the cause of substantial justice. The reasoning was that the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay, and these were circumstances beyond his control. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the assessee's appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The taxpayer was directed to plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Khalid Ali, filed an appeal for assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) on 27.11.2023, against an assessment order dated 09.03.2023. The assessee faced a delay of 233 days in filing this lower appeal. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT challenges this refusal to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was justifiable and ought to have been condoned? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond his control and that he had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons. The assessee relied on the principle that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. Revenue's contention: The 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. No specific argument was recorded for the revenue disputing the condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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

For Appellant: CA Sh. Satish Rawat, CA
Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1082189403(1), dated 31.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 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 both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone delay of 233 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 27.11.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 09.03.2023, 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. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC is condoned and the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the Assessing Officer for its 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →