SHIVAM SUNDRAM BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4039/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 55-day delay, considering the medical unfitness as a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 55 days. The assessee's Director was medically unfit, causing the delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning it.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to medical unfitness of the director. Whether the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘G’: NEW DELHI.

Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Bansal, Advocate, Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, CIT DR
Hearing: 24.11.2025

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shivam Sundram Buildwell Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 27, C – 2/19, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 034. (PAN :AAKCS7505F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Mudit Bansal, Advocate Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date of Order : 24.11.2025 O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 25.04.2025 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and the assessee has requested to condone the same on the ground that the Director of the company was medically unfit and suffering from various ailments due to which he was unable to consult his counsel for future course of action, however the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 55 days and the ld. CIT (A) did not entertain the condonation of delay requested by the assessee and rejected the same. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal caused by the reasons beyond the control of the assessee which is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has not passed the order on merits. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) may be condoned and the appeal be restored to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide on merits.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) should not be condoned as no cogent sufficient cause was provided before him.

4.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee, we are of the view that the delay is of 55 days which was understandable and there was sufficient cause in delay filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the same. Further, we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the issues afresh as per law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of November, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →