Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
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.
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).
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.
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.