UMAR FAROOQ,SAHARANPUR vs. JAO, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAHARANPUR

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 77 days before the Tribunal for which an application for condonation of delay was filed wherein it is stated that assessee had not received any communication either by SMS or email or by post in respect of the disposal of the appeal and the uploading of the order on the e-filing

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

Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 77 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.

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 806 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation petition filed before the ld. CIT(A) was that the previous counsel of the assessee had not intimated about the passing of the assessment order and since the mail id and mobile number mentioned in the E-filing portal were not of the assessee, he was not aware of the assessment order passed in his case. Only when the assessee got the notice of recovery of outstanding demand, the fact of passing of the assessment order came to

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.

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 the delay is of 806 days for which the assessee has failed to give any reasonable explanation and therefore prayed the order of ld. CIT(A) should be confirmed.

After hearing both the parties and considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee has been able to make out a case that he has reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 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

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