SHRI SALIP SINGH ,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, W- (1)(3)(4), ROORKEE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 151 days in filing. The assessment order was received on March 31, 2022, and the appeal was filed on September 28, 2022.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC was justified in passing an ex-parte order and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in /2024 for AY 2014-15, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064875690(1) dated 14.05.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal on law as well as on merits, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in passing order ex parte and by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Page | 1
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld NFAC had not even stated the number of days of delay in filing of appeal, but on perusal of Form 35, we find that the assessment order was received on 31.03.2022 by the assessee and the appeal has been preferred on 28.09.2022. Hence, there is a delay of 151 days. In the interest of substantial justice, we hold that the said delay is required to be condoned and since the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by not condoning the delay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal in its entirety to the file of the ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to raise additional grounds, if any, and additional evidences, if any, in support of his contentions before the ld NFAC. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/03/2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026