What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was sufficient cause for condonation, following the liberal approach laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 137 days in filing. The assessee provided an explanation for the delay, which the CIT(A) found insufficient. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The consequence of restoring the quantum appeal on the penalty appeal.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, Dehradun vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2561/Del/2026

ITA No. 2562/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 2561/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 ITA No. 2562/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Rajesh Bhardwaj, Vs Income Tax Officer, T-1, 202A, Arcadia Hilloks, Ward-58(7), Haripuram Kanwali, New Delhi-110002 Dehradun, Uttarkhand-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGGPB5394Q Assessee by: Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CA Revenue by: Sh. Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 16.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeals of the assessee are directed against orders dated 20.01.2026 and 10.02.2026 passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Act wherein in the quantum proceedings, the appeal was dismissed on account of refusal to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal, whereas, in the penalty proceedings, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was also confirmed.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. However, the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) that

2 ITA Nos. 2561 & 2562/Del/2026 Rajesh Bhardwaj reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal, but the ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, ld. AR for the assessee requested to condone the delay of 137 days and remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves

3 ITA Nos. 2561 & 2562/Del/2026 Rajesh Bhardwaj the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 5. It is an admitted fact that the delay of 124 days was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being not admitted by the ld. CIT(A).

We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which find mentions in para 8.1 at page 23, extracted below as under:

4 ITA Nos. 2561 & 2562/Del/2026 Rajesh Bhardwaj

5 ITA Nos. 2561 & 2562/Del/2026 Rajesh Bhardwaj

It is settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material

6 ITA Nos. 2561 & 2562/Del/2026 Rajesh Bhardwaj is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order is set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since, the assessment order is ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, therefore ends of justice requires that assessee be given an effective opportunity of hearing for completing assessment u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. lower authorities. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after affording and effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee who shall submit the material/submissions within a period of 60 days of passing of this order.

Since, the quantum appeal in ITA No. 2561/Del/2026 has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeal in ITA No. 2562/Del/2026 cannot be sustained at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in

7 ITA Nos. 2561 & 2562/Del/2026 Rajesh Bhardwaj accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 16/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 31/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

RAJESH BHARDWAJ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 58(7), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments