ASHOK SETH,DELHI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ashok Seth, Vs ACIT, Plot No. B-30, Geetanjali Enclave, Circle-61(1), New Delhi-110017 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AARPS1432R Assessee by: Sh. Saksham Garg, CA & Sh. Shahrukh Sifi, CA Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 16.06.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.06.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation as ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 4 years and 9 months and Assessment Order dated 28.02.2015 was confirmed.

2 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth against the return income of Rs.6,51,11,278/- by making disallowance of Rs.5,27,841/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of indirect expenditure incurred in making the investment in shares and mutual funds and for earning the exempt income. Another addition was made of interest on Income Tax refund by making following additions as under:

Penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in law, the impugned appellate order dated 27.06.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limine on the ground of limitation, without appreciating that the Appellant had shown sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act warranting condonation of delay, and thereby failed to advance the cause of substantial justice, rendering the impugned appellate order unlawful and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time- barred without appreciating the ''sufficient cause" that the Appellant had filed the appeal within time on 09.04.2015 at the ASK counter of Circle 61(1), Delhi, meant to be transmitted to the office of the Ld. CIT(A)- 20, constituting bona fide and reasonable cause, fully satisfying the requirement of "sufficient cause" under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 249(3) is required to be construed liberally in favour of advancing justice, and that technicalities of limitation ought not to defeat adjudication on merits vide of Collectorr Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167ITR 471 (SC). 4. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing the impugned appellate order in a wholly arbitrary, perverse, and mechanical manner by erroneously attributing to the Appellant a plea of condonation of delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic vide para 4.1 of the impugned order, when no such plea was ever raised by the Appellant; thereby rendering the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) patently misconceived due to admitted non-application of mind, and the impugned order itself liable to be quashed as having been passed without due appreciation of the record. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the settled position of law that length of delay is immaterial so long as the cause explained is bona fide, and further erred in holding that the Appellant did not demonstrate reasons "for each day's delay", contrary to the settled principles of law laid down inter alia vide Moot Chandra v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that denial of condonation has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice, since the additions made under Sections 14A and 244A were themselves ex facie unsustainable in law, and identical disallowances for earlier

4 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth years had already been deleted by this Hon'ble IT AT in the Appellant's own case. 7. That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the binding decision of the coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the favour of the Appellant for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 vide ITA Nos. 554 and 5298/Del/2013, wherein the facts are pari materia to the present case. 8. That the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned orders erred in law in not following the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasaotni Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 2 321 (SC) as the material facts of the Appellant have not changed i.e. all direct expenses attributable to earning exempt income has been met out of personal drawings and there is no finding to the contrary based on any cogent material or evidence. 9. That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have failed to adhere to the requirements of judicial discipline vide Union of India v. Kanilakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 711, by overlooking the decision and findings therein of the above mentioned coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal, rendering the impugned disallowance untenable in law and liable to be quashed. 10. That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in making/confirming the impugned disallowance of Rs. 6,02,705/- as the same is based purely on guesswork sans any material evidence in support thereof, rendering the same unsustainable in law vide Dhakesivari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT1955 AIR 65.” 5. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee/appellant has filed an affidavit giving the details of facts and circumstances resulting into delay in filing the appeal. It is further stated that refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal has resulted into miscarriage of justice hence prayed for consideration of the affidavit seeking condonation of the delay and subsequently, appeal be allowed by restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.

5 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth demonstrate the sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the appeal has been rightly dismissed.

6 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth

7 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth

8 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth 8. No contrary material has been produced before us by the Revenue which may show that the contents of the affidavit are false or fabricated. In the absence of any contrary material, we have to believe the correctness and truthfulness of the affidavit.

9 ITA No. 5181/Del/2025 Ashok Seth condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.