SUMER CHAND,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 4, YAMUNA NAGAR

The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. On the basis of information received that the assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, reassessment proceedings under section 147 were initiated. As there was no compliance to the notices issued during the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessment order dated 04.12.2019 was challenged before him only on 26.07.2022, resulting in a delay of 935 days. The explanation furnished by the assessee, namely non-receipt of the assessment order, illness due to viral fever and mental shock, was held to be insufficient for condoning such an inordinate delay. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that even otherwise the issue involved stood covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Narang.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the assessee has filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the reasons which prevented the timely filing of the appeal. It was, therefore, prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 935 days in filing the appeal before him. It was further contended that although the Ld. CIT(A), while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, observed that the issue was covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahnder Pal Narang Vs. CBDT, New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 17971 of 2019 dt. 19/02/2020 [2020] 120 taxmann.co m 400, the matter still requires adjudication inasmuch as the appeals against the said judgment are stated to be pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It was accordingly prayed that appropriate relief be granted to the assessee.

The Ld. DR opposed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. On merits, the Ld. DR relied upon the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the controversy is no longer res integra, the issue being squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Ajay Kumar Jain Vs. ITO in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as the delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is concerned, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Having considered the explanation furnished therein and keeping in view the settled principles governing condonation of delay, I am satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29/07/2026 Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.