SUKHBIR SINGH,PALWAL vs. ITO, WARD II(4), , FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8633/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 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 in filing the appeal, citing the larger interest of justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2012-13 against an order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act. There was a significant delay of 569 days in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that communication gaps at various levels prevented them from presenting their case effectively in lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice, and whether the case should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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

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 2012-13, 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/250/2023-24/1062730421(1), dated 16.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 569 days in filing 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).

3.

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 Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.

4.

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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 21st 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 →