AVTAR SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO.WARD-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.277/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2020-21) Avtar Singh, Income Tax Officer, Gurudwara Gali, Ward-1(1)(1), Vikasnagar, Uttarakhand-248198. Vs. Dehradun. PAN-ARWPS9726J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajeev Sahani, FCA Department by Shri Deepak Choudary, JCIT Date of Hearing 21/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/07/2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, AM:

In this case, the ITAT registry has reported a delay of 52 days in the filing of 1. the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay of the same as under: “I, Avtar Singh son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of Gurudwara Galki, Vikasnagar-248198, Dstt. Dehradun state as under: 1. That I am assessed to Income Tax vide PAN ARWPS9726J and am conversant with the all the facts stated hereunder. 2. That an Appeal Order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 was passed by the NFAC on 15.1.2026. 3. That I had paid the Appeal Fees of Rs.10,000 for preferring the Appeal before your Honours on 19.02.2026 vide CIN 12459/BSR Code 000271.

2 ITA No.277 /DDN/2026 Avtar Singh vs. ITO

3 ITA No.277 /DDN/2026 Avtar Singh vs. ITO

1.1 Considering the averments recorded in the said affidavit, the case is admitted for adjudication after condoning the said delay. 2. This appeal arises from the order dated 15.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’), by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. In this case the assessee did not respond to the opportunities given by the Ld. AO and thereafter has suffered an addition of Rs.12,50,000/- on account of being assessed as earning short term capital gain through sale of immovable property. 2.1 Aggrieved the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where there was a delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal. It is seen that the assessee filed a detailed affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A), seeking condonation of delay. In the said affidavit, which is extracted on pages 3 to 4 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the assessee is not conversant with the online procedures and use of computers. Due to this fact the assessee was exclusively dependent on his tax consultant for making the necessary compliance. It has been mentioned in the said affidavit that there was an error on the part of the tax consultant due to which the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before the Ld. AO and thereafter it was only when the assessment order was physically received that he was made aware of the ex-parte order. It was only due to these circumstances that there was a delay in filing of the appeal. It is seen

4 ITA No.277 /DDN/2026 Avtar Singh vs. ITO

that this explanation did not find favour with the Ld. CIT(A) who eventually dismissed the appeal in limine after not condoning the delay. 2.2 Aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds of appeal challenging the action on merit as also on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated on merit. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the relative ignorance of tax procedure on the part of the assessee has resulted in adverse orders against him. It was a submission that it is a trite position of law that the Courts should not adopt a hyper technical approach in cases requiring condonation of delay, rather they should adopt a justice-oriented approach. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee had a reasonably good case on merits and deserved to be given a chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO so that there could be a fair assessment of his taxable income. 3.1 The Ld. DR strongly relied on the orders of authority below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. At this stage we need to remind ourself of pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject of “sufficient cause”. In Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Mst. Katji AIR [1987 SC 1353], the following guidelines should be borne in mind while interpreting the concept of "sufficient cause":- [1] The Litigant does not stand benefited by lodging an appeal late; [2] Refusal to condone may result in meritorious matters being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated; [3] In the matter of explanation of a very day's delay, pedantic approach should be avoided. Rational common sense, pragmatic approach should be invariably adopted; [4] Substantial justice is to be preferred against technical flaws;

5 ITA No.277 /DDN/2026 Avtar Singh vs. ITO

[5] There is no presumption that delay is always deliberate; and [6] Injustice is to be removed. In another decision from the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay, the important aspects that have to be kept in view in deciding the cases relating to condonation of delay have been succinctly summed up in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy (2013) 5 CTC 547; the relevant portions are extracted below for convenient reference:- "15. From the aforesaid authorities, the principles that can broadly be culled out are: [i] There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. [ii] The term 'sufficient cause' should be understood in its proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that this term is basically elastic and is to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. [iii] Substantial justice, being paramount and pivotal, the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. [iv] No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. [v] Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. [vi] It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. [vii] The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the concept of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. [viii] There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted, whereas, to the latter, it may not be attracted. That apart, 3/5 the first one warrants strict approach, whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. [ix] The conduct, behaviour and attitude of party relating to its inaction or negligence area relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.

6 ITA No.277 /DDN/2026 Avtar Singh vs. ITO

[x] If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. [xi] It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. [xii] The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion, which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. [xiii] The State or a public body or an entity, representing a collective cause, should be given some acceptable latitude."

Also, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal reported in 174 taxmann.com 21 (SC), order dated 31.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement has mandated a justice-oriented approach and has advocated that a liberal view should be taken while dealing with matters of condonation of delay. 4.1 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and the authorities discussed above, the impugned order is set aside and the delay before Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. We now remand this matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDEN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/07/2026 *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent

7 ITA No.277 /DDN/2026 Avtar Singh vs. ITO