HOTEL RUDRA CONTINENTAL,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. XIT(A) NFAC, HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 237/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, prioritizing substantive justice, condoned the delay subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Uttarakhand High Court Legal Services Committee. The case was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 26-month delay in filing. The assessee attributed the delay to the negligence of their tax consultant, who failed to inform them about the assessment order until a penalty notice under Section 270A was issued. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary legal issue was whether the 26-month delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, given the reason of tax consultant's negligence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “DB”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Matta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.02.2026

आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 14.10.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC.

1.1 Right at the outset, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the delay of 26 months was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed in limine. It was averred by the Ld. AR that Item no.15 in Form 35 lists the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was mentioned by the Ld. AR that all tax matters of the assessee were being looked after by the tax consultant who was not vigilant enough about the orders issued from the Ld. AO’s Office. Thereafter, it was only when a penalty 1.2 The Ld. DR supported the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the reasons given for the delay are vague and generic. It was stated that in the absence of cogent reasons for delay the assessee should not be allowed to obtain any condonation of delay.

2.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that indeed the assessee has very generally blamed the tax consultant for the massive delay. We also find that no affidavit etc. has been filed at any stage. However, we are acutely aware of several judicial precedents that mandate substantive justice prevailing over technical issues. We are also aware that any condonation of delay in this matter could lead to repeat behavior by the assessee in future and thus, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.2,000/- on the assessee, payable by 28.02.2026, to the Uttarakhand High Court Legal Services Committee located in the High Court Compound, Mallital, Nainital-263001 (UTTARAKHAND).

2.1 With this direction on costs, the impugned order is set aside and this case is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2026

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →