Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
The instant batch of four cases pertains to a single assessee herein, namely, Kavita Ralhan. All other relevant details thereof are tabulated as under:
Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order Appealed against No. 1. 443/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068449159(1) dated 09.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 144 2 444/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068452052(1) dated 09.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3 445/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068450843(1) dated 09.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(b). 4 446/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068452382(1) dated 09.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 271F.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both parties that the assessee’s instant four cases involve section 144, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F proceedings, as the case may be, involve identical issue of condonation of delay of 448, 248, 245 and 257 days; respectively, in filing of her as many lower appeals.
Learned Sr. DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact involved in the case files that the assessee had indeed filed her explanation stating reasonable cause thereof to various communication gaps and the fact that she shifted from Gwalior to Punchkula as given in the address of the case files.
Faced with this situation, we conclude by quoting Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that the foregoing delay(s) in the instant four appeals, deserves to be condoned in the larger interest of justice so as to make way for the substantial cause of justice. Learned CIT(A)-NFAC is directed to ensure that all the assessee’s corresponding four lower appeals are decided afresh on 2 | P a g e merits preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s four appeals to 446/Agr/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed on respective files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2025