Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose from the CIT(A)/NFAC's order refusing to condone a 72-day delay in filing the assessee's lower appeal. The delay was attributed to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
Held
The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. It was held that technical aspects should not impede substantial justice, and the assessee was given three opportunities to plead its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without properly considering the reasons provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
154, 1961
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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Shop No. 214, R.G. City Centre, LSC Circle-78(1), Block B, Lawrence Road, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110035 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCR6667C Assessee by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075338558(1) dated 31.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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 delay of 72 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 07.11.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 28.07.2023
Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed explained the above delay before the CIT(A)/NFAC stating all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond it’s control.
That being the case, we 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 it’s own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.