ASHUTOSH MALIK PROPRIETOR GEE ESS TEXTILES,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1892/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was not supported by cogent reasons and was not due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was served a copy of the lower appellate order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 2856 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing lack of knowledge of the CIT(A)'s order due to absence of a computer system and communication issues with their counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT can be condoned on the grounds presented by the assessee. Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Amit Kalra, Adv
For Respondent: DR (VC)
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1892/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Ashutosh Malik Proprietor Vs. Income Tax Officer GEE ESS Textile Ward-3 C/o Krishan Lal Kalra, Panipat Advocate, Haryana- 132103 857-858, Sethi Chowk, Panipat- 132103 Haryana PAN: ACDPM9720A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Krishan Lal Kalra, Adv. Sh. Amit Kalra, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (VC)

Date of hearing 22.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.04.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Karnal’s order dated 06.02.2018, passed in DIN and order no. IT/84/PPT/2013-14, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

ITA No.1892/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant instant appeal suffers from 2856 days delay which is sought to be explained in his condonation petition; reading as under: “To The Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Benches, New Delhi Sub: Request for Condo nation of delay The Honourable Court, Most humbly and with due respect and regards, the appellant may submit, that an appeal was preferred, before the Honourable Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) Karnal on 24.02.2014, against The order u/s 143 (3) of Income tax act 1961. passed by The Income Tax Officer, ward-3, Panipat. The Honourable Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) Karnal had decided The Appeal u/s 250 of Income tax act 1961 vide order dated of 06.02.2018.

(1) REASONS FOR DELAY It is submitted for the consideration of The Honourable Court that it came in the knowledge of the appellant, when the effect to appeal initiated on 11.11.2025 on order u/s 250(6) of The Income tax 1961 dated 06.02.2018 and the appellant was required to confirm and submit an affidavit that the refund for the Assessment 2011-2012 is not received and if that may have been already received, the appellant may undertake to compensate the department. The appellant have submitted the affidavit on 19.11.2025. The refund order for Rs. 3,57,175/- is granted on 01.12.2025 after adjustment of Rs. 1,83,980/- on account of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of Income tax act 1961 vide Ex- party order dated 27.03.19. Further it is submitted that prior to 11.11.2025, the date of initiation of refund order, the appellant was not aware, regarding the decision of the appeal u/s 250(6) of Income tax act 1961 dated 6.2.18, because the appellant was having no system as computer or laptop. The first time the laptop 2 | P a g e

ITA No.1892/Del/2026

was purchased on 28.09.2017 and appellant have claimed depreciation for first time in assessment year 2018-2019. So the appellant was having no knowledge and system to check Income Tax portal, as the portal was not activated on the date of filling of appeal. Further it is submitted that the case of the appellant was looked after by Sh. Gulshan Chugh C.A, so Mr. Gulshan Chugh C.A, appeared time to time before the Ld. Income tax Officer ward-3, Panipat and got the case completed u/s 143(3) of the Income tax act 1961 with the addition of Rs. 17,03,215/-.so the appellant was advised by the C.A to prefer the appeal. The appeal was preferred, the appeal work was assigned to Sh. K.C. Aneja, a senior most ITP, but the appellant was not informed by both the councils regarding the fate of the appeal, if it may have came in the knowledge of the appellant, the appellant may have applied for refund in the month of March 2018 and may not be getting the refund on 1 day of December 2025, after seven years. Secondly the appellant may have taken the steps to protect his interest and got the case decided u/s 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act 1961. The case u/s 271 (1) (c) may have not been decided ex- party on 27.03.2019 by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3, Panipat. The facts and circumstance happened without the knowledge and beyond the control of the appellant, since 24.02.2014 the date of appeal preferred and came in the knowledge of appellant on 11.11.2025, the date of giving effect to appeal u/s 250(6) of Income tax act 1961 on 11.11.2025. The appellant applied before The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Karnal on 12.11.2025 and 17.12.2025, to supply the authenticated copy of order dated 6.2.18 decided U/S 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The copy of order is supplied manually on the council on 24.12.2025. Further with due respect and regards the kind attention of Honourable Court is drawn on the section 5 of The Limitation Act 1963 "Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of order XXI of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. Further the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial Justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. Further it is submitted that as soon as the appellant come to know the fate of his appeal on 11.11.2025, the appellant 3 | P a g e

ITA No.1892/Del/2026

become active and applied for the authenticated copy of order u/s 250 of Income tax act 1961 on 12.11.2025 and 17.12.2025. Sir, there is no negligence or in action or want of bona fide action on the part of appellant. Further it is submitted that the office of the Income tax department at Panipat, was even not aware, regarding the decision of the order dated 06.12.2018, otherwise the action on refund to the appellant may have not been initiated late by more than seven years on 11.11.25. Further the appellant may submit that the problem to get the online information begins from the day on filing the appeal on 24.02.2014, due to lack of knowledge and updation of system. Further the appellant may submit before The Honorable Court with due respect and regards that there is no negligence or in action or want of bona fide action. The affidavit confirming the facts on delay as stated above is attached herewith. The Honourable Court is requested to kindly condone the delay to meet out the demand of justice and the innocent appellant may not suffer.”

3.

Learned counsel submits in this factual backdrop that there exist sufficient reasons indicating the assessee’s bonafide is explaining the impugned delay of 2856 days which deserves to be condoned. He could hardly dispute that the assessee had very well perused his lower appeal through his learned counsel and the impugned orders copy was also sent to him. The necessary inference which arises is in the department’s favour that the assessee was indeed served a copy of the lower appellate order; and, therefore, it is hereby concluded in light of University of Delhi vs Union of India & Ors (2020) 1 SCALE 297 (SC) that such a delay not supported by cogent reasons on account of circumstances beyond control couldn’t be condoned. Faced with this situation, 4 | P a g e

ITA No.1892/Del/2026

I find merit in the Revenue’s vehement contentions to reject the assessee’s instant appeal on limitation issue itself. Order accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd April, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →