PRAVEEN SINGH RANA,UTTARKASHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI (NFAC)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 123/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 April 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 425 days, considering the medical condition as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 425 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, citing latches. The assessee claimed the delay was due to knee pain and submitted a medical certificate.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether an ex-parte assessment order should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Hearing: 09.04.2026Pronounced: 15.04.2026

( A.Y 2018-19) Praveen Singh Rana Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Nagar Palika Complex, (Appeals)/ National Faceless NearTiloth Pul, Barahat Appeal Centre, Range, Uttarakash Delhi Collectorate, Uttarakhand (RESPONDENT) PAN: AOOPR7186N (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv Respondent by Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 26/12/2025for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/03/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 1444B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 425 days in filing the First Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned dated 26/12/2025, dismissed the First Appeal without condoning the above delays in filing the Appeal. The Assessee aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), preferred the captioned Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, though there was a reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal on delay in latches, thus sought for condoning the delay and allowing the present Appeal.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 425 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), since there is no sufficient cause explained to condone the delay except producing medical certificate. Thus submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It was the specific case of the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessee was suffering from knee pain and could not file the Appeal on time. To substantiate the same, the Assessee produced medical certificate issued by the Doctor who treated the Assessee.

However, the CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal on the ground of delay in latches.

6.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay.

In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.

Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 425 days in filing the Appeal and before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessment order has been passed ex-parte, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to pass de-novo assessment in accordance with law.

Needless to state that the Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →