VLCC PERSONAL CARE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay considering the assessee's actions and potential misunderstanding. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue denovo after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to an inordinate delay. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay nor decide the issue on merit. The assessee had filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act and waited for its outcome.
What were the issues?
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and not deciding the matter on merit. The assessee's belief regarding the status of a Section 154 application leading to the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI
Assessee by Ms. Sweetie Kotharti, Adv. Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 21/06/2024 O R D E R
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur [“Ld.
CIT(A)”, for short], dated 17/01/2024 for Asst. Year 2020-21.
At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the inordinate delay for filing the appeal before him and also not decided the issue on merit. Both the Counsels agreed with the above facts on record and at the same time, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted reasonable ground for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A).
After considering the submissions of the both party, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay for the facts on record that the assessee had filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and waited for the same. With regard to status of the u/s 154 application, Ld. CIT(A) could have verified from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Since, the 143(3) assessment was completed on 20/09/2022, the assessee may be under wrong impression. That is the reason assessee has failed to file appeal on time before First Appellate Authority, in case he is not satisfied with the reason submitted by the assessee, he should have decided the issue on merit.
After considering the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the delay may be condoned for the sake of overall justice and we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue denovo after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21st June, 2024.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026