SARFARAJ HUSSAIN,JANANGIRABAD, BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2) BULANDSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5133/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the departmental representative did not dispute the assessee's explanations for the delay. Citing a Supreme Court precedent (Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others), it held that technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Consequently, the tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to plead and prove their case at their own risk.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC, which was passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)/NFAC had rejected the assessee's lower appeal, refusing to condone the delay in its filing, citing a lack of justifiable reasons for the substantial delay between the assessment order (09.12.2019) and the appeal institution (19.12.2022).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal before it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 24.09.2025Pronounced: 24.09.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072638799(1) dated 28.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 19.12.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 09.12.2019 thereby

4.

Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

5.

That being the case, I hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice and restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities, subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →