VISHWANATH AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE 17 DELHI, DELHI

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1055/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 VISHWANATH AGARWAL, Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF RZ-227B, Gali No.6A, INCOME TAX, Palam Village, South West Delhi, Central Circle 17, Room No.353, Delhi 110045. 3rd Floor, 2-E, ARA Centre, PAN No. ABXPA4825B Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110055. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25.05.2026 Pronouncement on 25.05.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.1 The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2085 days. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the reasons for the said

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL delay were inadequate and thereafter proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) and also challenging the action of Ld. AO, CPC on merits.

“As mentioned in our appeal, the intimation order under section 143(1) was received late. To support this claim, we are submitting the following evidence:  The intimation order u/s 143(1) was not received via email and post.  A screenshot showing our unsuccessful attempt to download the intimation order through the Income tax portal (Annexure E).  Grievance Acknowledgment No.20493542, which confirms the delay in service and addresses the issue of the late receipt of the documents (Annexure F).  It is evident that the intimation order u/s 143(1) was received on 13th January 2025. Since the appeal was filed within 30 days of this date, specifically on 10th February 2025, the appeal was timely filed. These documents clearly establish that the intimation order was served late, thereby validating the timeliness of the appeal. Conclusion: We kindly request you to consider the attached documents for a fair review of the appeal. Should any additional documents or

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL clarifications be required, we are available to provide the necessary support. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your favourable consideration. Kindly accept our appeal against the erroneous tax demand.” The Ld. AR stated that the delay arose due to factors beyond the control of the assessee, who had even filed grievance petitions to obtain the intimation order. It was stated that the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act was received only on 13.01.2025 and thereafter, the first appeal was filed on 10.02.2025, i.e. within 30 days of receipt of this order. The Ld. AR prayed for remanding this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

2.1 The ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL proposition of delay condonation in the light of certain leading authorities.

i. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 (SC) 3222, the Supreme Court of India has explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under:

"... The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the Parties and to advance substantial Justice, Time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy... for the redress of the legal injury so suffered... the law of limitation is thus founded on public policy...."(p. 3224) ii. In Shankar Rao v. Chandrasen Kunwar [1987] Suppl. SCC 338, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took the view that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

iii. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra [1977] 47 Comp. Cas. 453 (SC); the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression 'Sufficient Cause' should receive a liberal construction.

iv. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL protection of section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.

v. In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that, if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay.

vi. In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court of India considered a large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572; Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487; Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37; Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that the expression 'each day's delay must be explained', does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and it must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

vii. The Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 and many other cases on the subject, culled out the following principles relating to condonation of delay, which are reproduced from the judgment, because of the all- time importance of the subject:

"1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 5

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL 2. Refusing to Condone Delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this; when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (p. 473)” 3.1 Considering the authorities cited above and the reasons advanced by the assessee, we feel that in spite of the quantum of delay, this is a fit case for condoning the same and remanding this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remand back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 01.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.1055/Del/2026 VISHWANATH AGARWAL