ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GARG ALUMINO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 3849/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 March 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reason provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) constituted a sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal found that the Learned CIT(A) had not decided the assessee's appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide them on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings and file necessary replies within the time limits set by the Learned CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yuga Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, dated 28.03.2025. The appeal before the ITAT pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. The Learned CIT(A) had not admitted the assessee's appeal because it was filed with a delay of 320 days, excluding the COVID-19 limitation period. The assessee cited the illness of its counsel as the reason for the delay. The assessee later became aware that the appeal against a penalty order had not been filed, engaged a new counsel, and filed the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) with a delay of over 1050 days. Despite several notices, the assessee failed to comply before the Learned CIT(A). The ITAT noted that the reason for the delay was sufficient cause for condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal filed by the assessee due to a delay of 320 days (excluding COVID-19 period) for Assessment Year 2013-14, and if the reason for delay (illness of counsel) constituted sufficient cause for condonation under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) was due to the illness of its counsel, which was a sufficient cause for condonation. The assessee also contended that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of over 1050 days after realizing the initial appeal was not processed, and the reason for this delay was justifiable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Hearing: 13/11/2025Pronounced: 13/11/2025

O R D E R

PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) in short] dated 28.03.2025 passed U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14.

From the perusal of the appellate order, it is found that ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as the appeal was filed delay 320 days (excluding the covid limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation petition was illness of its counsel. Due to illness of the Learned AR, this order was not looked into and so no action has been taken. The assessee during the covid pandemic came to know that appeal was not filed against Yuga Printpack Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the said penalty order, however immediately after that the present counsel was engaged and appeal was filed delayed by more than 1050 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reason being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Further, it is seen that despite of issue of several notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

Under these circumstances and the interest of justice, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay has sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, therefore, all the issues are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings and filed the necessary replies within the time limit provided by the Ld. CIT(A). With these directions, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above. Order pronounced in open Court on 13/11/2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →