CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2274/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 378 days, finding no mala fide intent and noting that the appellant did not gain by not filing the appeal within the limitation period. The ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to a significant delay of 378 days. The delay was attributed to the chartered accountant's lack of diligence in handling tax matters for the autonomous body.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of the CA's lack of diligence, and whether an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and restored for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 09.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The application for condonation of delay of 378 days in filing appeal and appeal filed assessee are against the order dated 25.01.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 27.12.2019 of the Ld. Assessing Officer/The Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(4), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO") under Section 144 of the Act for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that delay of 378 days in filing appeal is due to lack of diligence of the Ld. CA to handle tax-matters and other technical matters of the Autonomous Body under Ministry of Ayush, Government of India. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that application does not show sufficient cause for the delay. Undisputedly, the application has been filed by Autonomous Body under Ministry of Ayush, by pleading lack of diligence of the CA to handle tax and technical matters. The explanation does not smack of mala fide as appellant has not gained anything by not filing appeal within period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 378 days in filing appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.

3.

Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order dated 25.01.2024 on basis of material available on record by observing in para no. 5.11 that the appellant is not pursuing appeal and not filing documents.

4.

Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on impugned order.

5.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order dated 25.01.2024 by holding

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →