PINKI GOYAL,REWARI vs. ITO WARD 2 , REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4910/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, citing communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). There was a significant delay of 223 days in filing the appeal. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps during virtual hearings led to the inability to present facts effectively.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and whether to set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh adjudication due to procedural lapses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

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: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pinki Goyal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1, Goyal Super Store, Gur Bazar, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rewari, Haryana-1234001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABAPG8963F Assessee by: Sh. Parth Singhal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A), Rohtak’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/1015637427(1) dated 01.04.2019, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 223 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower

5.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective 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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →