Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. There was a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps at various levels prevented the assessee from presenting their case effectively.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. It was held that communication gaps could not be ruled out, and restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would serve the larger interest of justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
ORDER This assesseee’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/250/2025-26/1076502062(1), dated 28.05.2025 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 124 days in filing of the assessee’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). The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making addition(s) herein on merits.
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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.