MOHIT SATIJA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 43(6), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4517/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Covid-19 pandemic period and a landmark Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also noted a lack of proper adjudication in the lower appellate order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order that arose from assessment proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. There was a significant delay of 450 days in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the lower appellate order was properly adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mohit Satija, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-399, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, Ward-43(6), Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BDAPS6791Q Assessee by : Sh. Ankit, AR Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070853769(1) dated 03.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It is noticed at the outset that the learned lower appellate authority has refused to condone the assessee’s 450 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 09.04.2021 against the assessment order dated 15.12.2019. That being the case, it is manifestly clear that most of the intervening time period herein above is covered under Covid-19 pandemic Mohit Satija outbreak upto 28.02.2022 which already stood excluded for all intents/purposes as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

4.

Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 450 days institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

5.

This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →