AWADH FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD-1(1), DELHI

ITA 8138/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2026AY 2023-243 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 168 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which established that technical aspects should yield to the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay, and the Departmental Representative could not dispute these explanations. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The taxpayer was directed to plead and prove its case at its own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Awadh Foundation, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for assessment year 2023-24. The appeal was filed with a delay of 168 days against an assessment order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable. The assessee's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenges this refusal to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, considering the reasons explained by the assessee. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its control and that it had explained all the reasons in its condonation petition. The assessee relied on the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. Revenue's contention: The Departmental Representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue on this point.

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: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

Date of hearing 19.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, 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/250/2025-26/1082575772(1), dated 13.11.2025 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.

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 the delay of 168 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 04.10.2025 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 20.03.2025, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed its condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

That being the case, we 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 CIT(A)/NFAC 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →