EMILIA FRANCISCA BERGMANS,DELHI vs. AO, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1484/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A), condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 19 months. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the ground of this delay, without considering the reasons provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the sufficient cause, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1484/Del/2026, A.Y. 2019-20 Emilia Francisca Bergmans Vs. AO, C-30, Lodhi Road, Circle 4(2), Central Delhi, C.R.Building, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi New Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BIHPB0805Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 07.01.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 25.03.2021 for A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

In grounds of appeal, the assessee pleaded as under:

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1484/Del/2026 Emilia Franchisca Bergmans

“1. The order passed by the learned Addl./JCIT (Appeals) is contrary to the law, the facts of the case, and the principles of natural justice. 2. The CPC made addition of Rs. 28,08,924/- to the returned income in the Intimation issued U/s 143(1) dated 25.03.2021(during Covid Period). The appellant filed objection on 14.09.2022, against the demand raised in the Intimation. The AO/CPC did not respond to the objection of the assessee. The appellant filed appeal before CIT(A) on 17.11.2022 with a delay of 19 months. Appeal was dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal. 3. The Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limine solely on the ground of alleged delay of 572 days (19 months) in filing the appeal, without appreciating the "sufficient cause" provided by the appellant as per the provisions of Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned AddI/JCIT (A) failed to appreciate that a significant portion of the alleged delay fell within the period covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Appl. 21 of 2022/ Misc. Appl. No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 5. The learned AddI/JCIT (A) failed to consider that the appellant was bona fide in pursuing an alternative remedy by filing an Objection on 14.09.2022 against the demand. The assessee had a bona fide belief that the grievance would be resolved through disposal of her Objection application at the level of Assessing Officer. 6. The delay in filing the appeal was primarily due to Covid Pandemic in which offices of the appellant and her Chartered Accountants were closed and also appellant was hopeful of settling down the issue at the level of the Assessing Officer by filing Objection against the demand. Unfortunately, the Objection was though filed but was never addressed. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the delay in filing the appeal before him (on 17.11.2022) was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not exercising the discretionary and quasi-judicial powers vested in him to condone the delay, despite the Appellant having demonstrated bona fide conduct and absence of any malafide intention.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1484/Del/2026 Emilia Franchisca Bergmans

9.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that dismissal of the appeal in limine has resulted in grave prejudice to the Appellant, as the following grounds raised by the assessee in appeal before Ld. CIT (A) have remained unexamined on merits. a. That the appellant denies her liability to be assessed at the assessed income of Rs. 84,87,210/- and the tax liability of Rs. 25,76,044/- computed thereon. b. That the Ld. AO has erred in not following the Proviso to Section 143(1) for making adjustments and charging higher rate of tax in the Intimation passed U/s 143(1). c. In any view of the matter and in any case, addition of Rs. 28,08,924/- to the returned income of Rs. 56,78,290/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. d. In any view of the matter and in any case, computing the aggregate tax liability at Rs. 25,76,044/-in 143(1) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. e. The Ld. AO erred in charging rate of tax @ 30% plus Surcharge and Cess on the foreign income covered by Articles of Treaty with Netherland. f. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering the amount of foreign income of Rs. 28,08,924/- twice in 143(1) that resulted in addition of Rs. 28,08,924/- to the returned income. 10. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

4.

Ld. CIT(A) in para No. 2 noted that the assessee pleaded reason for delay in filing appeal as the intimation was received during the peak second wave of Covid-19 when most of the offices were not functioning/closed. The explanation

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1484/Del/2026 Emilia Franchisca Bergmans

does not smack of malafide as the appellant/assessee had not gained anything by not filing appeal earlier within period of limitation.

5.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex-parte order dated 07.01.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 19 months in filing appeal and appeal in limine. In view of above material facts in interest of substantial justice, impugned order dated 07.01.2026 of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, delay of 19 months in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned / allowed and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 09.07.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals)

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1484/Del/2026 Emilia Franchisca Bergmans

5.

DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →