JAI NARAYAN,. vs. ITO WARD-2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD, .

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2026 as the appellant is the same and proceedings are inter-related being quantum proceeding and subsequent penalty proceedings emanating from the main quantum order subject matter of ITA No. 2322/Del/2026,

Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi alongwith request to condone the delay of 256 days in quantum appeal in ITA No.2322/Del/2026. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation given for above said delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed on this account.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR at the very outset, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal and despite sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay may be condoned and the matter be restored to ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh. Per contra, ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay and thus the appeal has rightly been dismissed by the CIT(A), which does not need any interference.

We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the rival submissions available on record. The ld. AR submitted before us that inadvertently condonation of delay application could not be filed before the ld. CIT(A) who has refused to condone the delay despite being sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is submitted that the delay occurred due to some family tragedy. The assessee could not approach his CA for filing the appeal as the necessary documents including the order copy is misplaced somewhere by him.

The ld. DR on the other hand would submit that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal in quantum proceedings as well as in penalty proceedings.

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”. 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 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

In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid well settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the instant case is fit for condoning the delay in dispute, because the explanation given by assessee seeking condonation of delay was sufficient and justified. In our view, dismissal of the appeal against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, the impugned

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose, in the aforesaid manner. 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