ANUPAM NAYYAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6423/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2025AY 2012-133 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, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. 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 beyond the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 38 days, 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 143(3),Section 147

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: 25.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2025-26/1079888992(1), dated 22.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 38 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 22.02.2020 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 24.12.2019, 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →