SHEESH RAM,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWARI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach. It found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee, an illiterate senior citizen, claimed inability to operate the income-tax portal and access notices due to technical issues. The ITAT noted the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained, and whether the ex-parte dismissal without a proper hearing violated principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan
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. 2578/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Sheesh Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, Rudh, Suthana Bawal, Rewari, Ward-2, Haryana-123501 Rewari, Haryana-123110 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AVOPR1547E Assessee by: Sh. Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 13.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein appeal has been dismissed ex-parte on the ground of non-compliance with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings as well as the assessment proceedings.
The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal. The contents of the application are reproduced as under:
2 ITA No. 2578/Del/2026 Sheesh Ram
3 ITA No. 2578/Del/2026 Sheesh Ram
We have considered the contents of the condonation application and the submissions made by the ld. AR. We find that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay to substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 70 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
4 ITA No. 2578/Del/2026 Sheesh Ram 4. During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. However, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A), explaining that the assessee is an illiterate senior citizen engaged in agricultural activities, was unable to operate the income-tax portal, and could not access the notices as the e-filing account was linked with another person's mobile number and email address. Consequently, the assessee could not effectively represent his case either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.
The ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been shown 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.
5 ITA No. 2578/Del/2026 Sheesh Ram 6. We have heard 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. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 7. In view of the above, it is well 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
6 ITA No. 2578/Del/2026 Sheesh Ram Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and principle of natural justice has not been followed. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has recorded that the assessee neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment during the assessment proceedings. Considering the above facts and in the light of complete non-compliance by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition without any material having been produced or submitted on behalf of the assessee before completion of the assessment. Similar observations have also been recorded in paras 2 & 3 of the assessment order, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the assessee neither submitted any response nor filed any reply. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the ld. AR, we find it expedient, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after giving an
7 ITA No. 2578/Del/2026 Sheesh Ram effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the AO within the period of 60 days of this order.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
