SMT. DAYAWANTI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 1638/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 February 2025AY 2005-06Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the procedure adopted by the NFAC was not known to law. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the NFAC had rejected the assessee's request for condonation of delay without providing any reasoned findings that took into account the period of delay or the reasons cited by the assessee. Furthermore, the NFAC had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned order of the NFAC. The Tribunal directed the NFAC to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing on the application for condonation of delay. Following this, the NFAC is to pass further orders as per law based on the adjudication of the delay condonation application. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Satish Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal without condoning the delay, stating that the reasons provided for the delay were not satisfactory. The ITAT noted that the NFAC had not provided reasoned findings regarding the delay or adjudicated the appeal on merits. The assessment year in question is 2014-15. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the assessee's appeal being dismissed by the NFAC solely on the grounds of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for condonation of delay without providing reasoned findings, thereby not adjudicating the appeal on merits? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the assessment of reasons for delay). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued, through their representative, that the NFAC's order was procedurally flawed as it failed to provide a reasoned adjudication on the delay condonation application and did not address the merits of the appeal. The assessee implicitly contended that the dismissal solely on delay without proper consideration of the reasons was not in accordance with the law. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, represented by Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR, did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding the NFAC's order or the assessee's appeal. The judgment states that the Revenue was heard, but their arguments are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad Faisal

For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Satish Kumar, Vs ITO, A9/13A, Ground Floor, Ward 65(2), Vasant Vihar, Delhi New Delhi - 110 057. PAN: AJVPS8737N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mohammad Faisal Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed by not condoning the delay. After taking into account the impugned order of the NFAC, we find that in para 2, the NFAC observes as follows:- “2. The assessee’s request for condonation of delay is rejected as the reasons stated by him for condoning the delay is not satisfactory.”

Apparently, the NFAC has not given any reasoned findings taking into account the period of delay or the reason cited. At the same time, we find that the NFAC has also not adjudicated the appeal on merits. This procedure is not known to law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →