PERSONAL TRUST INJURY FOR RAMEEZ AHMAD,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, TRUST WARD, CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4534/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2025AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons for non-compliance and in the interest of substantive justice, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Personal Injury Trust, filed an appeal 113 days late due to the trustee's ill health and the need to care for his incapacitated son. The trust failed to comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment due to non-compliance with lower authorities' notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.12.2025

आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is time barred by 113 days, for which a request for condoning the said delay has been filed in column no.11 of Form 36 as under:

Whether there is any delay in filing Yes, of appeal. “I Kaunain Ahmad aged 62 years, am (If yes, please attach application the Trustee of the Personal Injury seeking condonation of delay) Trust for Rameez Ahmad and authorized to file this Appeal and request for condonation of delay. This trust was established to cover the medical and personal care expenses of my son, who has been incapacitated due to an accident. I was unable to file the appeal on time because I am myself not in good health and also occupied with 1 attending to my son and providing him with the necessary care, which, despite engaging round the clock attendants, is a fulltime job , I therefore, humbly request for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 1.1 Considering the reasons given for the delay, we hereby condone the same and admit this appeal for adjudication.

2.

This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) dated 16.01.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the assessee is registered as an AOP/BOI. During the year under consideration, the case was picked up for scrutiny for verifying a deduction of Rs.67,26,542/- u/s 57 of the Act and also for verifying an investment of Rs.3,40,00,000/-. It is seen that neither before the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) was there any compliance to the notices issued by the authorities below. Needless to say, the action of Ld. AO was confirmed at first appeals stage, leading to the present appeal.

3.

The Ld. AR mentioned that the person looking after the affairs of this assessee is the father of Shri Rameez Ahmad. It was the submission that due to his poor health and involvement with round the clock care of his injured son, he was not able to attend to the proceedings before the lower authorities. It was prayed that one more chance may be given to the assessee for presenting the facts.

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have carefully considered the documents before us and have gone through the details filed through a paper book running to 65 pages.

It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice and also considering the reasons given for non-compliance before the authorities below, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.

5.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025

More judgments on Section 57

All 1,225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →