NETAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. CIT APPEALS, CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.1759/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Netar Singh ITO Ward 6(5) S/o Nasib Singh, Village Paintpur Mohali बनाम/ Vs. Mullanpur Garibdass, Mohali Punjab – 140901 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. CTTPS-4431-F (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Vishal Sharma (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 04-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 05-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 30.10.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.12.2019. The only prayer of Ld. AR is condonation of delay before lower authorities and fresh

adjudication on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is a poor illiterate person of rural background and he was completely depended upon his counsel to pursue the Income Tax proceedings. The delay is stated to be have happened due to lapse on the part of counsel. 2. It could be seen that the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis wherein Ld. AO has made addition of cash deposit for Rs.33.80 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 1858 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 dated 03.09.1998 wherein it has been held as under: “Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finislitium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969

SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”.

Considering the fact that the assessee has faced genuine hardship, we condone the delay in first appeal. The Ld. AO is accordingly directed to frame de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. For this, the assessee is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards plantation of trees of Indian origin having a minimum height of 4 feet. The same shall be deposited with JAN VIKAS SHIKSHA SAMITI TRUST (PAN NO. AACTJ8160E), House No.1577, Sector-38B, Chandigarh, an NGO carrying out plantation work on the riverbank of the Yamuna near Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). The plantation activity shall be undertaken with a period of three months from the date of this order. The receipt & requisite proof thereof would be furnished by the assessee to Ld. AO who would proceed for fresh assessment accordingly.

Order pronounced on 05th June, 2026.

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 05-06-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH