SHASHWAT VERMA,LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and condoned it, emphasizing a liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also restored the issue of tax credit to the AO for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 398 days. The assessee claimed the delay was unintentional and bonafide, due to a change in address not being intimated to the AO, leading to non-receipt of assessment orders and demand notices. The CIT(A) rejected these reasons, taking a pedantic view.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and if the issue of tax credit should be restored to the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
- Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others43 citing3 SCC 195 · 2002
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y. 2011-12) Shashwat Verma, Flat-34, London House, London NW8 7PX, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant United Kingdom PAN: AFSPV-5520-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(1), R.No. 2109, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant by : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 20.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The appeal is time barred by 88 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the reasons for delay stated in application appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 88 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
(AY 2011-12) 3. Shri Mayank Patawari, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee is permanently reallocated to the United Kingdom in July 2012 and is holding British Citizenship since then. Before moving to the Great Britain, the assessee was residing with his father in a Government accommodation. After the assessee was reallocated to the United Kingdom, the father of the assessee also retired from the Government Service and vacated the Govt. accommodation allotted to him. However, change in address remain to be intimated to the Assessing Officer (AO). The notices and the assessment order were sent to the old address which were never received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the assessment order and the demand notice through his father at a much later stage. Immediately, the assessee engaged a tax consultant and applied for the certified copy of the assessment order and filed appeal before the CIT(A). This resulted in delay of 398 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). He further submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) was unintentional and for the bonafide reasons mentioned above. The assessee had explained these very reasons to the CIT(A) in Form No.
35. The CIT(A) disbelieved the submissions of the assessee and dismissed appeal in limine on ground of delay in filing of appeal. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 for condoning delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A).
The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case in his favour. Explaining the case on merits, he submitted that the assessee had filed return of income in reply to notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax (AY 2011-12) Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 27.12.2018 declaring income of Rs.6,45,490/-. The AO has made addition of Rs.6,12,890/- on the basis of 26AS and has also not given the benefit of tax credit.
Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that firstly the assessee has failed to furnish return of income within time specified in notice u/s. 148 of the Act and has failed to participate in the assessment proceedings. Secondly, appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was time barred by 398 days and the assessee failed to show sufficient reason for delay in filing of appeal. Hence, the CIT(A) rightly dismissed appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of appeal in Form No.
The CIT(A) taking a pedantic view dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation alone.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view, the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice. 7.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that liberal approach should be adopted while (AY 2011-12) dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 7.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.
The reason explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal appears to be bonafide. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned.
A short prayer of ld. Counsel for the assessee on merits is that the assessee has not been given benefit of tax credit. Without commenting on merits of addition, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO to pass the assessment order afresh. The AO while passing the fresh assessment order shall allow credit of advance tax/TDS deposited for the relevant period.
(AY 2011-12) 10. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 30th day of July, 2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S. Tiles Gallery, Shivamogga vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, ShivmogaBangalore22 Aug 2024Allowed
Also relies on Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be re...
- Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs ITO Ward-23(1)(1), MumbaiMumbai27 Feb 2024Allowed
Also relies on Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bonafide reasons and not intentional. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that acceptance of explanations for delay s...
- Karnataka Power Corporation Limited… vs ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), BengaluruBangalore4 Aug 2025Remanded
Also relies on Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided to be bonafide and plausible, while cautioning the assessee against future lapses. The Tribunal also decided to remit the case back to t...
- D N S Lase Optik Pvt Ltd, Dwarka vs Income Tax Officer- ITO, Dwarka, New DelhiDelhi15 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after the assessee files a detailed cond...
- Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Shivamogga vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, ShivamoggaBangalore23 Sept 2024Remanded
Also relies on Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the assessment order. The delay was not intentional or deliberate, and n...
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026