VENUS JAWAHHRAT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4198/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not impede substantial justice and that the assessee's appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to prove their case at their own risk.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay of 1 day. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, stating that the reasons provided were not justifiable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone a 1-day delay in filing an appeal without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069554731(1), dated 09.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 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 with the able assistance coming from the both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 1 day in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 19.01.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 20.12.2022, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

3.

Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

4.

That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice, and restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →