SHAM SUNDER MONGIA ,HARYANA,INDIA. vs. CIT (A) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER, DELHI, INDIA.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had applied strict rules of procedure and dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, which was not justified in the case of an individual assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee preferred an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 18 days, despite acknowledging the reasons for the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to a delay of 18 days, without condoning it in the case of an individual assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.10.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10238207, filed before him against the order dated 01.03.2023 passed u/s 147 R.W.S. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short).
At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee though notices have been repeatedly issued. No more notice is justified.
On hearing the ld. DR, we find that the impugned order has been passed by the NFAC whereby the appeal of the assessee delayed by 18 days has been dismissed without admitting and not condoning the delay. After going through the impugned order, we find that the NFAC mentions in para 5 the reasons for delay, but, ignoring that the assessee is an individual and applying strict rules of procedure and following judicial decisions which cannot be justified in case of an individual, dismissed the appeal in limine.
Accordingly, allowing condonation of delay we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and restore the issue on merits as well as on law for determination afresh by the CIT(A)/NFAC. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:31st October, 2025. dk
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 →- Firoz @ Firoz Khan vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Mectronics Marketing Services vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
