SURESH KUMAR,VILLAGE SARHERA vs. ITO WARD - 4, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5041/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the period of delay falls within the Covid-19 pandemic exclusion period and relied on landmark decisions for condoning the delay. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which refused to condone a delay of 392 days in filing the lower appeal. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the lower appellate order complied with statutory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: 23.09.2025Pronounced: 23.09.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Suresh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, VPO Sarhera, Tehsil Barwala, Ward-4, District Hisar, Haryana-125121 Hisar, Haryana-125001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CPBPK9288N Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079637810(1) dated 14.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.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 transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone 392 days delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 19.02.2021 against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 17.12.2019.

Suresh Kumar 4. This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the impugned almost the entire above intervening period between the assessment to the date of institution of above lower appeal falls in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period which already stood excluded for all intents/purposes as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

5.

Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 392 days of institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

6.

This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →