What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days, finding the assessee's explanation to be without malafides. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 42 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself. The assessee's reason for delay was being busy during the wheat season and not logging into the portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the assessee's explanation.

Chander Has Bhatia, Karnal vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Airik Singla

For Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

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. 4586/Del/2026, A.Y. 2015-16 Chander Has Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer, W. No. 10, Ward-1, PUNJAB COLONY, Karnal Indri S. O., Indri KARNAL Haryana �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ANYPB9273D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Kumar Singla & Ms. Airik Singla, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Raghuveer Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 17.03.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4586/Del/2026 Chander Has Bhatia

to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 07.03.2024 for A.Y. 2015-16.

Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing appeal. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appellant/assessee was busy inwheat season and did not login Portal.

Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(a) vide order dated 17.03.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing appeal and appeal of the assessee. The assessee had pleaded that due to his occupation inwheat season, he could not login Portal and was not aware of the impugned order. The explanation does not smack of malafides as the appellant/assessee had not gained anything by not filing the appeal earlier. Therefore, the delay of 42 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is condoned.

In view of above material facts, in interest of justice, impugned order dated 17.03.2026 of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored to the file of Ld.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4586/Del/2026 Chander Has Bhatia

CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 06.07.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

CHANDER HAS BHATIA,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 1, KARNAL

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