SHIVAM GUPTA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO- 44(8), DELHI

ITA 4490/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 September 2026AY 2012-136 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay, as seen in cases like Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others. However, it emphasized that this liberal approach is applicable only when there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant and the cause shown is bona fide. The Tribunal found that while the illness and death of the assessee's mother explained a part of the delay, a significant period of over 300 days remained unexplained. Citing N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, the Tribunal stated that the acceptability of the explanation is the criterion, not just the length of the delay. The Tribunal further referred to Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh, highlighting that a valuable right accrues to the other party due to the failure to explain delay, and taking away that right due to negligence or inaction would be unreasonable. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application lacked sufficient cause, demonstrating negligence and inaction, and therefore, the delay could not be condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shivam Gupta, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated May 31, 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was filed on April 23, 2026, which was 630 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to the illness and subsequent death of his mother on February 4, 2025. The assessee provided a detailed history of his mother's illness from December 2020 until her death. However, the Tribunal noted that even accepting the stated reason, it would only cover a partial period of the delay, leaving a significant portion unexplained.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 630 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the explanation provided by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by the serious illness and subsequent death of his mother, providing a detailed timeline of her medical condition. The assessee relied on pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to advance substantial justice, citing cases like Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue on the condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal's reasoning implies that the Revenue would likely oppose the condonation due to the unexplained portion of the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri Raushan Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Senior DR

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 18.09.2026

2 ITA No.4490/Del/2026

3 ITA No.4490/Del/2026

4 ITA No.4490/Del/2026

5 ITA No.4490/Del/2026

6 ITA No.4490/Del/2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →