ADITYA BHARADWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 54 (1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2800/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing the assessee's reasonable cause of medical illness. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 199 days due to the assessee's serious medical condition and reliance on a consultant. The assessee's earlier appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 55 days for similar medical reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition is a sufficient cause for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Prabal Pratap Singh
For Respondent: Shri Lal Ram Sanga Sailo
Hearing: 13/07/2026Pronounced: 13/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2800/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19) Aditya Bharadwaj, Income Tax Officer, A-199, Ground Floor, Ward-54(1), Defence Colony, Vs. Delhi. South Delhi, Delhi-110024. PAN-ANQPB7058N (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Adv. Assessee by Shri Prabal Pratap Singh, Adv. Department by Shri Lal Ram Sanga Sailo, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 13/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 13/07/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A) in short], dated 20.06.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10286692 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) dated 28.03.2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 199 days before the Tribunal for which an application for condonation of delay was filed alongwith an affidavit wherein it is stated that due to serious medical condition and ongoing treatment, the Appellant was not in a position to personally attend to or effectively

2 ITA No.2800/Del/2026 Aditya Bharadwaj vs. ITO monitor his tax matters. Consequently, the Appellant had engaged a consultant to handle the proceedings and was entirely relied upon the said consultant for compliance with the statutory requirements. However, due to certain inadvertent lapses on the part of the consultant, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The delay thus occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant and was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on his part. Assessee also placed medical records from Fortis Escorts Heart Institute and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and stated that due to this reason the appeal was filed delayed by 199 days before the tribunal. It is thus prayed that the delay being unintentional and the assessee has reasonable cause, the delay may please be condoned.

3.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.

4.

Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause of medical illness of the assessee which has caused delay in filing the appeal by 199 days. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

5.

In ground of appeal No 1, assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee as it was filed delayed by 55 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation petition filed

3 ITA No.2800/Del/2026 Aditya Bharadwaj vs. ITO before the ld. CIT(A) was that the due to the medical exigencies being faced by the assessee such as thyroid, chest pain, and artery blockage during the month of April 2023, he was admitted for the period 25th March 2023-29th March 2023, amidst which the Assessment Order was passed by the A.O. on 28.03.2023. Consequently, the Appellant was re-admitted for further treatment on the following dates, 14.04.2023-19.04.2023 and 02.05.2023-12.05.2023 along with regular visits to OPD for frequent checkups. Therefore, the Appellant was unable to coordinate with his authorized representative to provide the required documents and details for the purpose of filing Form-35. The assessee’s personal presence was also required for online verification of documents for the purpose of DSC registration and due to ill health the same was not possible. Hence, the assessee prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal and further requested to decide the appeal on merits. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the same facts and requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and further requested to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits.

7.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and failed to give any reasonable explanation for delay and therefore prayed the order of ld. CIT(A) should be confirmed.

8.

After hearing both the parties and considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee was not well when the assessment order was passed and in support legal history was also filed thus the assessee has been able to make out a case that

4 ITA No.2800/Del/2026 Aditya Bharadwaj vs. ITO he has reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) of only 55 days. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. Therefore, to subserve the principal of natural justice and respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and restore the grounds to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merit, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.07.2026.

S Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026. *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →