SANDEEP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 72(5), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground of delay in filing without adjudicating the grounds on merit. The assessee contended that there was sufficient cause for the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without considering the merits, and if the delay should be condoned based on sufficient cause.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.05.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and: in law, the order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and CIT (A) erred in not holding: 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not' adjudicating the grounds of appeal
on merit
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on the account of alleged unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.”
2. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissing the assessee’s appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, without going into the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC) and submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before the CIT(A) within stipulated time. He prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
3. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions and relied on the order of learned CIT(A).
I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, inter alia, observing as under:
“In the result, the present appeal fails since the delay in filing of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is treated as dismissed u/s 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed.”
4.1 A perusal of the order of learned CIT(A) reveals that he has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine for delay in filing the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, in order to to subserve the ends of justice, in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra), I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) with direction to decide the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard and to produce documentary evidence, if any, in support of his case. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 14th September, 2023.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026