What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons for delay to be bonafide. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 180 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether a liberal approach should be adopted for condonation of delay.

Ish Kumar, Haryana vs NFAC | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 05.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2020-21.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. The assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 180 days. The assessee has given reasons for delay in filing of appeal in Form No. 35. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate on the part of the assessee. The reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) appears to be bonafide.

ITA 2623/DEL/2026 ISH KUMAR

The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.

In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 the Hon’ble Court held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.

The delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority is condone. The appeal is restored back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee upon service of notice(s) shall respond to the same, without fail.

ITA 2623/DEL/2026 ISH KUMAR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 19th day of May, 2026. Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 29-May-2026 NV

Copy to: ISH KUMAR, H. NO. 12J/63, MEDICAL CAMPUS, 1 ROHTAK, ROHTAK-124001, HARYANA NFAC, 2 NFAC, DELHI-, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

ISH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. NFAC, 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