THE DIVINE EDUCATION SOCIETY,ROHTAK vs. ITO, WARD 3, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3152/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial 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 found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay, noting that it included the Covid-19 pandemic period which the Supreme Court has directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the 2250-day delay and directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal on its merits within three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2014-15 against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The NFAC had refused to condone a significant delay of 2250 days in filing the lower appeal, which was instituted against a CPC Section 143(1) processing dated 22.10.2016.

What were the issues?

Condonation of a 2250-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic period on limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.11.2024

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no.

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064598512(1), dated 02.05.2024, in case no. NFAC/2013-14/10216240, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the assessee’s delay of 2250 days in filing of the lower appeal 22.10.2016. The Revenue’s case, accordingly, is that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause on account of circumstances beyond its control so as to get the said delay condoned.

3.

It is noticed in this factual background, although it was incumbent on assessee’s part to have explained the impugned delay going by Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & another (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and various other judicial precedents, the fact, however, remains that it had filed it’s condonation averments explaining relevant circumstances beyond its control and also that this impugned delay of 2250 days includes Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 which has already been directed to be excluded for all purposes by the hon’ble apex court in it’s land mark decision in Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, In re. (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

4.

Faced with this situation I find merits in the assessee’s condonation averments filed before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC and condone the impugned delay of 2250 days in very terms. Learned CIT(A)/NFAC is accordingly directed to decide the assessee’s corresponding lower appeal on merits, as per law, within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the assessee’s responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.

Order pronounced in open court on 28.11.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →