AMIT JAIN,DELHI vs. WARD 59(5), DELHI, DELHI

It emerges during the course of hearing that learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the delay of 212 days in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 24.04.2022 against the Assessing Officer’s penalty order u/s 271B dated 23.08.2021, 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 (2022) 441 ITR 722 in Cognizance for Exclusion of Limitation, In Re. 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 212 days in the light of Collector, Land & 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 3 | P a g e 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 3rd June, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)