CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 412/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)10 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there were sufficient circumstances for the delay in filing the appeal, including non-service of the order and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The delay was attributed to the assessee not receiving the intimation order under section 143(1) and subsequent difficulties including the Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee claimed it only became aware of the demand when its refunds were adjusted.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to non-service of the order and pandemic-related difficulties, and whether the appeal should be heard on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 249,Section 139(4),Section 12A,Section 11(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 05.01.2026Pronounced: 27.02.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)- 3, Lucknow under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16.05.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal assessee against the orders of the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) that passed for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 15.06.2020. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. 1 Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to facts & law and circumstances of the case.

2.

Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing First Appeal. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) is violative of th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →