Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order from the Assessing Officer for AY 2017-18 with a delay of 1200 days before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) refused to condone this delay, holding that the reasons for the delay were not justifiable, despite the assessee providing explanations and medical health records for circumstances beyond their control.
Held
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in *Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others*, the Tribunal ruled that technical aspects should give way to substantial justice. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to restore the assessee's appeal for fresh adjudication, providing three effective opportunities, on the condition that the assessee proves their case at their own risk and responsibility.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone a 1200-day delay in filing an appeal when the assessee provided reasons and supporting medical records for circumstances beyond their control.
Sections Cited
147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081284141(1) dated 29.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 1200 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 05.08.2025 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 24.03.2022 thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.
Vikas Rathore 4. Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond it’s control by filing his corresponding medical health records etc.
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 assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.