DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4387/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 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 of 45 days in filing the appeal, citing the decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the larger interest of justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, which could have prevented the assessee from presenting their case effectively. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Seema Bansal, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Bhopal, dated 20.03.2025, which was passed in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, which the Tribunal condoned. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear and present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the additions made by the lower authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, considering the larger interest of justice. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to communication gaps at various levels, preventing them from appearing and presenting all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings. They requested the matter be restored back to the Assessing Officer. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the action of the lower appellate authority and the additions made on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Bhopal’s order dated 20.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074737398(1), dated 20.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 45 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (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, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the 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 of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →