Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 05 ITAT CK 3791

Kapoor Singh vs ITO, Ward-2

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 4 May 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
M Balaganesh, Accountant Member · Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.9176/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 373 words

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.09.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN &Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081357168(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ITO, Ward-2, Sonepat, for AY: 2017-18.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that assessment order was passed u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) which was challenged before ld. CIT(A) and there the appeal of assessee was dismissed on the ground that delay in filing of appeal by 17 days.

3.

We find that assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay on the assertion that there was actually no delay and in Form 35 assessee had mentioned that the date of service was 03.02.2020 against the date order being 30.12.2019 and the appeal was filed on 15.02.2020 and therefore, in Form 35 assessee had mentioned that there is no delay in filing of the appeal.

4.

However, NFAC was of the view that there is a delay of 17 days and by quoting various judicial decisions preferred to dismiss the appeal in limine.

5.

We are of the considered view that such an approach of NFAC is bereft of all judicial principals which warrant that quasi-judicial authority should follow principles of natural justice. If assessee had claimed there was no delay and NFAC was of the view that there is a delay of 17 days then instead of dismissing the appeal in limine, NFAC should have cautioned the appellant and given reasonable opportunity for filing application for condonation of delay and thereupon to have decided the issue against the appellant. Since, such procedure has not been followed we are of the considered view that impugned order cannot be sustained under law.

6.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and restore the issue on merits as well as law to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give assessee an opportunity to file application for condonation of delay and thereupon to pass an order afresh on merits of the grounds.