Loading judgment…
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).
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal before it.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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
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.
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.