What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 146 days. The assessee provided reasons for the delay, which were claimed to be neither intentional nor willful.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits.

Sandeep, Sirmour vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT DR

Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A) ’] dated 04.06.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19.

At the outset, ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the ld.CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT (Appeals) was delayed for a

ITA 999/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 2

period of 146 days. It was submitted that the assessee has explained

reasons for not filing the appeal in time before the ld.CIT (Appeals). It was

mentioned in the application that the appeal was rejected by the ld.CIT

(Appeals) without issuing any notice for hearing u/s 250 of the Income Tax

Act or to submit any response/written submissions etc. It was submitted

that the delay is neither intentional nor willful. It was prayed that the matter

may be remanded back to the file of ld. A.O. to decide the appeal afresh.

Per contra, the ld. DR objected to the remanding back as it was

submitted that the assessee should be vigilant in pursuing the matter before

ld.CIT (Appeals).

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the

material available on record. It is settled law that the income tax litigation

is not an adversary litigation and a lenient and pragmatic view should be

adopted by the CIT (Appeals) while deciding the condonation of delay

application. In our considered view, the reasons given by the assessee for

delay before the CIT (Appeals) are plausible and reasonable because assessee

will not gain anything by filing its appeal late. In our view, the delay in filing

the appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals) is required to be condoned and

accordingly, we condone the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the

ld.CIT (Appeals).

ITA 999/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 3

Having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT

(Appeals), we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the ld.

Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the appeal on merit in accordance

with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

However, while granting one more opportunity in the interest of

justice, we deem it fit and proper to impose a cost upon the assessee.

Accordingly, the restoration of the matter to the file of the ld.A.O. shall be

subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 4,000/- to be deposited by the assessee

in the “Poor Patient Welfare Fund” of PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period

of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish

proof of such deposit before the Registry within the stipulated period.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes,

subject to the payment of cost, as aforesaid.

Order pronounced on 06th July,2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam”

ITA 999/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 4 Copy of the order forwarded to :

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Chandigarh.

Assistant Registrar

SANDEEP,SIRMOUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SHIMLA

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