MEENU,PALWAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6224/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a significant delay. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, stating that the reasons provided were not justifiable.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained and should be condoned to allow for substantial justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Meenu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/o- Prakash Veer, Palwal, Ward-1(3), Faridabad, Haryana, Faridabad PAN: DLHPM9866H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2025-26/1079858826(1), dated 22.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 03.11.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 22.03.2023, thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

3.

Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed her condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

4.

That being the case, we 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. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC is condoned and the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →