What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the very short delay of two days and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a two-day delay, which the CIT(A) refused to condone. The assessee argued that the delay was minor and should have been condoned, and that no opportunity was given to rectify the defect.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning a short delay of two days in filing the appeal, leading to its dismissal in limine.

Manharan Singh Suri vs Range-58, Delhi, Vikas Bhawan | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CA

For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 13.07.2026

ITA No.1816/DEL/2026 MANHARAN SINGH SURI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1816/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 MANHARAN SINGH SURI, Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, 104, Ground floor, Vikas Bhawan, West Punjabi Bagh Vigyan Vihar, Surajmal Vihar, Road Number 55, New Delhi, East Delhi, Yozna Vihar, S.O. Delhi 110026. Delhi 110092. PAN No. AAZPS5797B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CA Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.07.2026 Pronouncement on 15.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 06.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

On the last date of hearing, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the facts that a small delay of two days was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter, the appeal was dismissed in limine. The Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee had filed the appeal on the belief that it was filed within time and it was the further submission that no opportunity was given to rectify the defect in the shape of a petition seeking condonation for delayed filing of appeal. It was averred that even otherwise a small

ITA No.1816/DEL/2026 MANHARAN SINGH SURI delay of two days deserved to be condoned as it amounted to denial of justice on account of a very technical issue. It was prayed that the delay may be condoned and this matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO since even there also the assessee had not been able to make a presentation of facts.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is seen that the assessee has been rather casual in terms of complying to the notices issued by the Ld. AO for eliciting the necessary details from the assessee. Be that as it may, the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the very short delay of two days and admitted the appeal for adjudication. We cannot persuade ourselves to concur with the view of Ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay of two days. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, condone the delay and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, while the Ld. AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard, the assessee would be expected to respond promptly to such opportunities.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2

ITA No.1816/DEL/2026 MANHARAN SINGH SURI Dated:15.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

MANHARAN SINGH SURI,DELHI vs. RANGE-58, DELHI, VIKAS BHAWAN,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