Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 04 ITAT CK 3264

Sh. Pramod Kumar Chawla vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi · Decided on 30 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos.7811 & 7810/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 · 306 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.7811 & 7810/Del/2025 for assessment year 2022-23 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 29.09.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081302847(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081305398(1) involving proceedings under section 144 and 271AAC1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 478 days in filing both the assessee’s lower appeals instituted on 04.08.2025 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 12.03.2024 in quantum and 19.09.2024 in penalty thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of the justifiable reasons.

3.

Faced with the situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee had indeed filed his condonation petition before the CIT(A)/NFAC explaining all the reasons on account of circumstances beyond his control.

4.

That being the case, we hereby quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing both the quantum as well as penalty appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC is condoned and the assessee’s instant appeals are restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for their afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 7811 & 7810/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.