ANCHAL SINGHAL,HAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(4) HAPUR, HAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8199/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 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 185 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, emphasized that procedural technicalities should yield to the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed explained the reasons for the delay, and the Departmental Representative could not dispute this. 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 their case at their own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anchal Singhal, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal was filed on 08.10.2024 against an assessment order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone a delay of 185 days in filing this lower appeal, stating that the reasons provided were not justifiable. The assessee is now appealing this refusal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 185 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee, in light of the principles of substantial justice over technicalities? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control and that they had filed a condonation petition explaining these reasons. They relied on the principle that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative could not dispute that the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay in their condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC.

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

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 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/250/2025-26/1082629680(1), dated 14.11.2025 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 the delay of 185 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 08.10.2024 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 07.03.2024, 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, 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th 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 →