What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was sufficient cause. Technicalities should not defeat substantial rights of an assessee, and the delay should have been condoned.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 124 days in filing. The assessee provided an explanation for the delay, which was not accepted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for delay without condoning it, and if the assessee's explanation constituted a sufficient cause for the delay.

Ravish Gupta vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2259/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Ravish Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-5, Street No. 3, Chander Nagar, Ward-58(7), Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110051 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AOGPG0510B Assessee by: Sh. Rohit Singhal, CA Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 06.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereinthe appeal was dismissed on account of refusal to condone the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. However, the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that a reasonable cause has been showing that the assessee in filing the belated appeal, but the ld. CIT(A) was not

2 ITA No. 2259/Del/2026 Ravish Gupta satisfied with the explanation given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, ld. AR for the assessee requested to condone the delay of 124 days and remit back the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been made out by the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.

3 ITA No. 2259/Del/2026 ITA No. 2259/Del/2026 Ravish Gupta And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is h a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is h a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 5. It is an admitted fact that the delay of 124 days was not It is an admitted fact that the delay of 124 days was not It is an admitted fact that the delay of 124 days was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the assessee and thus the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being not admitted by the ld. CIT(A). was dismissed being not admitted by the ld. CIT(A).

We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which find mentions in para find mentions in para 7.2 at page 22, extracted below extracted below as under:

4 ITA No. 2259/Del/2026 Ravish Gupta

It is settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order is set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to condone the delay in dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh, after giving effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).

5 ITA No. 2259/Del/2026 Ravish Gupta 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/08/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 31/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

RAVISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments