SUKHBIR,BARWALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7917/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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 held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee must prove their case at their own risk.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose from an order rejecting a condonation of delay of 2672 days in filing an appeal against an order dated 30.03.2018, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal without properly considering the reasons provided.

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(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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Bengaluru’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082925703(1) dated 24.11.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A) has refused to condone delay of 2672 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 24.11.2025 against the CPC’s impugned section 143(1) “processing” dated 30.03.2018 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

1.

Sukhbir 4. Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay before the CIT(A) explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

5.

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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee 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 →