BRAHMDATT,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8208/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2026AY 2012-2013Bench: 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 appeals in the larger interest of justice. Considering potential communication gaps at various levels, the Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's twin appeals for assessment year 2012-13 arise from the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 587 days in filing the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

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: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

Date of hearing 19.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2026 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 8209/Del/2025 for assessment year 2012-13, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 06.02.2024, having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060571690(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060571878(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Delays of 587 days in filing both the asseessee’s instant appeals are 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 matters 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 appeals 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →