RAJENDRA SINGH,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 8143 & 8144/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 RAJENDRA SINGH, VS. ITO, WARD 2(2)(2), SWASTHYA VIHAR, NH-58, OPP. GHAZIABAD LOKPRIYA HOSPITAL, MODINAGAR-201204, DISTT. GHAZIABAD [PAN: BGDPS3102D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Shantanu Kanungo, Adv. & Ms. Shyantani Kanungo, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2026

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM : 1. These are quantum as well as penalty appeals filed by the assessee against the impugned orders both dated 30.9.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s both the appeals in liminie on account of being time barred.

before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of

1800 days in filing the appeal before him, which was occurred due to dispatching of notices at old address, while new address of assessee was mentioned in Form 35 and also updated on the Income Tax Portal login profile, as per the contention of the

assessee. The assessee made the prayer for condonation of delay in dispute

accordingly. It is noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal before the CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act

empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that

appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Ld. CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay in dispute and dismissed the

quantum appeal.

2.1 Further the assessee filed penalty appeal on 2.1.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order dated 21.3.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The

penalty appeal was dismissed due to the fact that since condonation application was

not accepted in the quantum appeal by the CIT(A) and the penalty appeal too has a

huge delay of 1799 days and there is no response from the assessee despite opportunities.

2 | P a g e

correct Address of the assessee. The assessee had sold his house and his address was changed. The order was not served upon the assessee and the assessee filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority after obtaining the certified copy of the

order. He further submitted that the assessee has shown the sufficient cause for condoning the delay, which was not condoned by the Appellate Authority. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee. The appeals were rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeals and should have

decided the appeals on merit because the assessee has shown the sufficient cause

not to file within time. Thus, keeping the entire aspects of the matter we, condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) having been satisfied with

the explanation so, rendered by assessee by the said authority. The orders passed

by the Ld. CIT(A) are setting a side. Therefore, we restore back both the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing orders afresh, on merits in accordance with

law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the written submissions, if any. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and

cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the Ld.

CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeals. Also, assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment except for compelling and

3 | P a g e

unavoidable circumstances. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly,

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 15.07.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

4 | P a g e