MOHIT SATIJA,DELHI V. ITO, WARD 43(6), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4517/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC), Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4517/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mohit Satija, C-399, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(6), New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BDAPS6791Q Assessee by : Sh. Ankit, AR Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070853769(1) dated 03.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It is noticed at the outset that the learned lower appellate authority has refused to condone the assessee’s 450 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 09.04.2021 against the assessment order dated 15.12.2019. That being the case, it is manifestly clear that most of the intervening time period herein above is covered under Covid-19 pandemic Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4517/Del/2025 Mohit Satija 2 outbreak upto 28.02.2022 which already stood excluded for all intents/purposes as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). 4. Faced with this situation and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 450 days institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4517/Del/2025 Mohit Satija 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/10/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 30/10/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "