AVISHA CEDIT CAPITAL LIMITED,CONNAUGHT PLACE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-28, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3384/DEL/2025Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 September 2025AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation that the authorized person was unwell, which prevented timely filing. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the CIT(A). The order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Avisha Cedit Capital Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The original assessment order, dated 29.09.2021, was passed for assessment year 2018-19 under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT arose from the CIT(A)'s dismissal of its appeal. The ITAT noted that none appeared for the assessee during the hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred, thereby failing to condone the delay, contrary to Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the principles of natural justice. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the authorized person being unwell, which constituted a sufficient cause. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on its merits. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, represented by the CIT, DR, argued that no sufficient cause was shown by the assessee for condoning the delay, and therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 253(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Sita Srivastava, CIT, DR
Hearing: 23/09/2025Pronounced: 24/09/2025

Date of hearing: 23/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals (25) – New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A))”] passing Avisha Cedit capital Limited Vs. DCIT CC-28 Delhi A.Y. 2018-19 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 u/s 153(C) of the Income Tax Act 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]

2.

At the out- set the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) being aggrieved the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT (A) who vide his order dated 28-03-2024 dismissed the appeal treated as time barred. Ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

3.

Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. CIT, DR submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for condone the delay in filling the appeal. He further stated that the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. None is present for assessee.

Avisha Cedit capital Limited Vs. DCIT CC-28 Delhi A.Y. 2018-19 8. The assessee has filed the application for condonation the delay before the appellate authority. In, the application the assessee has stated that the assessment order was received through registered post. The authorized person of the assessee was not well, so appeal could not filed within the prescribed time. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file the appeal with in time. The Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have heard the appeal on merit because the assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file the appeal with in time. Thus, keeping in view, the entire aspects of the matter, we condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) having been satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the assessee before the said authority. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is setting side, the issue to the file is restored before the Ld. CIT(A) who decide the matter to the file after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Avisha Cedit capital Limited Vs. DCIT CC-28 Delhi A.Y. 2018-19 appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →