LALIT AGGARWAL,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8804/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the COVID-19 period as a valid reason for delay as per Supreme Court orders. For the remaining delay, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of being preoccupied with personal family disputes and mental distress. The issue of condonation of delay was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 1208 days. The CIT(A) did not admit the appeal due to the delay and lack of reasons provided. The assessee claimed personal disputes and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 44AB,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCHES, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 8804/DEL/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13) LALIT AGGARWAL INCOME TAX OFFICER A-50 , SECTOR 02, NOIDA-201301, C.R. BUILDING Vs. UTTAR PRADESH NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ADPPA2960D

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh SACHIN JAIN, ADV ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: SH AJAY KUMAR ARORA, SR DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 05-May-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08-Jul-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, A.M.: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10499692 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of penalty order dated 12.01.2022 passed u/s 271B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 147/144 dated 07.12.2019 and proceedings u/s 271B of the Act for levy of penalty for not get the accounts audited in accordance with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act were initiated. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2022, the AO levied the penalty of INR 1.50 Lakhs by holding that the assessee has not get his account audited though he has the turnover exceeding the maximum threshold limits provided u/s 44AB of the Act. 1

ITA 8804/DEL/2025 LALIT AGGARWAL 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) however, the appeal was filed delay by 1208 days and no reasons were stated for the delay therefore, the appeal of the assessee was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.

5.

Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material on record. Before us, it was the claim of the assessee that there were serious disputes between the assessee and his wife and divorce petition was pending before the Family Court and certain other cases were going on due to which the assessee was mentally disturbed and could not file the appeal within the stipulated time period. In support of the legal cases pending in the case of the assessee is filed before us. It was further stated that due to COVID-19 pandemic and in terms of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto petition, the grace period allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court should also be excluded. As per the assessee delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and the assessee is having sufficient and reasonable cause for delay and thus proved the Bonafide and therefore it was the prayed that the delay may please be condoned and appeal be heard on merits.

6.

After careful consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order in Suo Moto Writ Petition in SMW(C) No. 03/2022 has extended the period of limitation falling under Covid-19 period, till 31.05.2022 due to Covid pandemic, therefore, to this extent the delay is not attributable to the assessee and should be excluded. For the remaining period, we find force in the submissions of Ld.AR that the assessee was preoccupied in personal family disputes and was mentally was not stable and was very disturbed therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time period. It is further observed that no explanation was tendered before the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, we remand this issue back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) 2

ITA 8804/DEL/2025 LALIT AGGARWAL with the directions to consider the application of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in the light of aforesaid discussion and admit the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law, if ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons stated by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary details in respect to the delay occurred in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). With these directions, all the Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

SUDHIR KUMAR MANISH AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 08.07.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr. P.S* Copy to:

LALIT AGGARWAL, A-50 , SECTOR 02, 1 NOIDA-201301, UTTAR PRADESH

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2 C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., DELHI 3

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →