UMESH KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, 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.285/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20) ITA No.286/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2020-21) Umesh Kumar Dy. CIT, Mandakini Vihar, Dhoranakhas, Central Circle, Sahastradhara Road, Vs. Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. PAN-AHBPK9503E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA Department by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/07/2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, AM: 1. This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AY 2019- 20 and 2020-21 and for the sake of convenience, these two matters are being disposed of through a single order. 2. Both these appeals are delayed by 146 days, as reported by the ITAT Registry. The assessee has filed identical petitions seeking condonation of delay and for the sake of convenience the petition for AY 2019-20 is extracted as under:

2 ITA Nos.285 & 286 /DDN/2026 Umesh Kumar vs. DCIT

“MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1 That the present appeal is being filed against the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] 2 That there is a delay of approx. 158 days in filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal 3. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant 4. That the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) was communicated through the registered e-mail ID available on the Income Tax Portal. However, the said e-mail account was not being frequently accessed and monitored by the appellant 5. That the said communication/e-mail containing the appellate order inadvertently went into the spam/junk folder of the registered e-mail account and therefore remained un- noticed by the appellant. 6. That immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the appellate order and the resultant delay, the appellant took prompt steps to consult his counsel and file the present appeal without any further loss of time. A copy of duly notarised affidavit is place on record for your kind consideration. 7. That it is submitted that the delay has occurred due to sufficient cause as contemplated under law, and the Appellant was prevented by reasonable and bona fide circumstances from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. 8. That the Appellant has a strong case on merits, and if the delay is not condoned, the Appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injustice, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned. 9. That it is a settled principle of law that matters should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities, and a liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. 10. That the Appellant undertakes to diligently pursue the present appeal and not seek unnecessary adjournments. 11. The appellant would like to place his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7.SCC 1231 the Apex Court made the following observations: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un condonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other

3 ITA Nos.285 & 286 /DDN/2026 Umesh Kumar vs. DCIT

cases. delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court.” 12 Further, in the landmark judgement of "Collector of Land Acquisition Vs MST. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)" the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Pragmatic and justice-oriented approach required-Judiciary is not respected for legalising injustice on technical grounds but for being capable of removing injustice.” 2.1 Considering the averments in the said petition, it is considered that there was reasonable cause for the delay, which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Right at the outset, the Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant, there was no compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR brought to our notice pages 1 & 2 of the impugned orders and requested that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the facts before us. We find that the assessee has indeed been very casual before the Ld. CIT(A) who has provided as many as ten opportunities of hearing. At this stage, we are concerned at the fact that on as many as three occasions, the assessee has sought adjournment and, therefore, it is evident that the notices providing opportunities were duly received by the assessee. We would be failing in our duty in case we were to condone such behavior on the part of the assessee.

4 ITA Nos.285 & 286 /DDN/2026 Umesh Kumar vs. DCIT

Accordingly, we deem it fit to impost a cost of Rs.5000/- in each case payable by 31.09.2026 to Dehradun District Legal Services Authority. The cost so levied shall be deposited u/s 17 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 4.1 We are also aware that judicial forums are meant to dispense justice and, in this case, while the conduct of the assessee deserves costs to be imposed on him but at the same time the assessee deserves a fair hearing in his case. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders in both the appeals and remand the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We would expect the assessee to be vigilant about the opportunities that would be provided by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in his case.