SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2007/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) which was dismissed due to a 30-day delay without condoning it. The assessee inadvertently mentioned no delay in Form 35. The CIT(A) did not give an opportunity to explain the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, especially when the delay was inadvertently not mentioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv, Shri Sarthak Abrol, Advocate &, Shri Pawan Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.08.2025

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 26.08.2025 29.08.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 05.03.2025 for the AY 2018-19 in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 30 days.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in Form 35 the assessee has inadvertently mentioned that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that there is a delay 1 of 30 days in filing the appeal and that assessee has not filed any explanation for the delay. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give the assessee an opportunity to explain about the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that there is delay of 30 days. Further the Ld. CIT(A) also gone into the merits of the additions/disallowances even though the appeal was dismissed for want of condonation petition. Ld. Counsel requested that the appeal may be restored to the file of either the Ld. CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer.

3.

Heard rival submissions, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that there is a delay of 30 days and no explanation was furnished by the assessee. Having dismissed the appeal for want of condonation petition Ld. CIT(A) has also gone into the merits of the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has not confronted the fact of whether there is any delay in filing of appeal by the assessee or not. The inadvertent mentioning of “No” in the column for giving the details of delay in Form 35 should not come in the way of ascertaining whether there is actual delay or not. In the circumstances, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall decide the appeal considering the explanation of the assessee on delay if any, in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →