JAGMOHAN SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT A -13 , NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, B-9/36, Sector-05, Rohini, New Delhi Vs. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi PAN: AZLPS2795L (Appellant)
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, 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/250/2023-24/1059004879(1), dated
22.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. Delay of 488 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167
ITR 471 (SC).
Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Goel, Adv.
Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
18.08.2025
Date of pronouncement
18.08.2025
2 | P a g e
It emerges during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 1597 days in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 27.05.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 11.12.2017, thereby holding him to have failed in submitting any justifiable reasons thereof. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the majority of the intervening time period between the above Assessing Officer’s processing and the date of the institution of the assessee’s lower appeal already stands covered under the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 in the light of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation case (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). 5. This is indeed coupled with the fact that he had sought to explain before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC that the impugned processing had also not been received in the intervening time period. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the foregoing delay of 1597 days in filing of the lower appeal in the light of Collector, Land & 3 | P a g e
Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities, at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
6. This appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th August, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 18th August, 2025. RK/-