DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODERATE CREDIT CORPORATION PVT. LTD., WEST BENGAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, while noting the absence of the assessee, relied on the decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal held that technical aspects should not impede substantial justice. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was condoned. The assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication within three effective opportunities. The taxpayer was cautioned to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Smt. Meenu, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed on 03.11.2023, against an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 22.03.2023. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay in filing the assessee's appeal, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable. The assessee did not appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and the proceedings were conducted ex-parte. The Revenue was represented by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the assessee's appeal, thereby not adjudicating the matter on merits, under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee, though absent, had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining the reasons for the delay due to circumstances beyond her control. Revenue's contentions: The learned departmental representative could not dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the reasons for the delay in her condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
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/250/2025-26/1079858826(1), dated 22.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 03.11.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 22.03.2023, 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 her 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. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
