Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 11 ITAT CK 3694

Sh. Rajbir Singh vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 20 November 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.3993/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 · 257 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075702140(1), dated 21.04.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 314 in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 25.04.2024 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 17.05.2023 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, and restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.