Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 518 days. The delay was attributed to the incorrect mailing of the CIT(A)'s order, leading to unawareness of the appellate order. The assessee had also failed to submit written submissions/replies before the CIT(A) despite opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the assessee was unaware of the new faceless procedure and that there was no mala fide intention. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to provide necessary details.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing opportunities to the assessee?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Whole Stationery Products Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-27(3), 19 IGI, Gurgaon Road, Vs. Delhi. Kapashera, Delhi-110097 PAN-AAACW0263A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A), in short] dated 06.12.2023 arising out of the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 29.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The present appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 518 days for which an application for condonation of delay is filed wherein it is stated that the order of ld. CIT(A) was sent on incorrect mail id and when the assessee has received the follow up communication from the AO, it had come to the knowledge of the assessee about Whole Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the passing of the appellate order. It is in this background, a request is made to condone the delay.
Heard the parties on delay. There was delay of 518 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the petition have not been found to be false and it is also a matter of fact that the assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in our considered opinion in filing the appeal is a result of unaware of new faceless procedure. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put- forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. In view these facts, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, from the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that Ld. CIT(A) has provided various opportunities of hearing however, assessee did not submit any written submission/reply. In this background that the CIT(A) proceeded to disposed-off this appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders. It is true that assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents in support of the claim made in grounds of appeal
s.
5. Under these facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, the appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after giving fresh opportunities to the assessee. The assessee is Whole Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and file all the relevant details in support of the grounds of appeal taken.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2025.