BHUSHAN KAKKAR,DELHI vs. EDCIT WARD 57(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5033/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 December 2025AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed with a significant delay. The assessee attributed this delay to communication gaps and circumstances beyond their control.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter restored to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 04.12.2025

Date of hearing 04.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 04.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2023-24/1056645548(1), dated 29.09.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 628 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

3.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities’ action making addition(s) herein on merits.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →