What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was a sufficient cause, considering the medical condition and hospitalization. The approach of the CIT(A) was considered hyper-technical.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 59 days, citing a medical emergency and hospitalization of the assessee. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal based on the assessee's medical condition.

Shesh Dhar Dubey vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

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

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 8212/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Shesh Dhar Dubey Vs Income Tax Officer, N-16A, Ground Floor, Jangpura Ward-72(1), Extension, New Delhi-110014 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHPD1833F Assessee by: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 10.10.2025 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein the appeal has been dismissed in limine while refusing condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the appeal by the assessee/appellant.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal for hearing by refusing to condone the delay of only 59 days for which a satisfactory explanation was made by the assessee as assessee could not file the appeal on

2 ITA No.8212/Del/2025 Shesh Dhar Dubey time because of the heart problem suffered by him on 14.04.2025 wherein assessee was also hospitalized and medical documents were also attached. It is further submitted that assessee was advised to complete bed rest and could not do his ordinary work for two months. It is further submitted that because of the above reason, the assessee could not submit the necessary document to his CA and advocate who without wasting any time has filed the appeal. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merit.

The ld. DR on the other hand while relying the order of the ld. CIT(A) would submit that the impugned order is legally justified however left it to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the condonation of delay in the larger interest of justice.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. We have 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”.

3 ITA No.8212/Del/2025 Shesh Dhar Dubey The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves 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. In view of above, it is well 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 is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

We have noted that the reason for seeking condonation of delay has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in para 2.2 and also discussed above by us. The said reason in all probabilities were sufficient for condonation of delay and the approach of the ld. CIT(A) has been hyper technical. We cannot forget that

4 ITA No.8212/Del/2025 Shesh Dhar Dubey the procedures are handmade of justice and whenever the quasi judicial authorities are required to do justice, the technicalities would not come in the way. While following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred (supra), we are satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and the delay in the filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is accordingly condoned. The matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

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

SHESH DHAR DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 72(1), 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