ANALIA GRACE VENTURES LLP,GURGAON vs. ITO- WARD 29(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6580/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2019-20203 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 held that technicalities should not impede substantial justice and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to plead and prove their case at their own risk.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay of 62 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone this delay, holding that the reasons provided were not justifiable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without considering the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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

For Appellant: Shri Abinash Samal, AR
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025

Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No :

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080189898(1), dated 30.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 62 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 04.06.2025 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 04.03.2025 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 his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

4.

That being the case, I 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, and restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead

2 | P a g e 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 26th 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 →