ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8315/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. 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 cited the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order that refused to condone a 132-day delay in filing a lower appeal. The delay was attributed to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081994367(1) dated 25.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 132 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 07.09.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 29.03.2022 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

1.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal 4. Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay 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 CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →