SARDUL SINGH,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, PUNJAB

PDF · subscribers
ITA 200/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the medical grounds cited for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the assessee to ensure compliance.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 470 days. The appellant cited his son's severe neurological illness and his sole responsibility for care as reasons for the delay. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay, partly due to an email discrepancy.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the assessment proceedings were validly initiated and concluded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 148,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी िवजय वमा� , लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. VIJAY VARMA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 200 /Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sardul Singh बनाम The ITO Cahklan, Rupnagar, Punjab-140102 Ward -2(2), Ropar �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CRUPS4845L अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/08/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2026 आदेश/Order PER VIJAY VARMA, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of the Ld. CIT/ NFAC Delhi dt. 14/01/2026 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10463560.

2.

In this appeal the appellant has raised the following grounds:

1.

That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10463560 has erred in passing order dtd. 14.01.2026 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO of initiating the impugned assessment proceedings u/s 148 and then continuing and concluding the impugned assessment u/s 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.70,65,000/- u/s 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits made by the appellant in the account maintained with UCO Bank.

2 4. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as not admitted on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal before him was not condoned, without properly appreciating that the reasons furnished for such delay constituted sufficient cause. 5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE plus surcharge thereon on above addition made u/s 69A in Ground No. 3, even when if the said addition is accepted academically, the same could only have been taxed at normal rates. 6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. That the appellant craves for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

3.

In Ground No. 4 the appellant contested the rejection of his request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per page 6 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the appellant had given the following reasons for condonation of delay of 470 days before the Ld. CIT(A):

2A. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal (as per Form No. 35) 2A.1 The appellant respectfully submits that there was a delay in filing the present appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2A.2 The delay occurred due to unavoidable and reasonable cause. During the relevant period, the appellant's son, Mr. Sapinder Singh, was suffering from a serious neurological disease and was bedridden since the year 2022. The appellant was solely responsible for his care, treatment and medical arrangements. 2A.3 Due to the said medical emergency in the family, the appellant was under extreme mental stress and hardship and could not attend to tax matters in time. Further, all communications from the department were sent to an email ID which does not belong to the appellant, and therefore the appellant was not aware of the assessment proceedings as well as the resultant assessment order. 2A.4 The appellant became aware of the assessment only upon receipt of recovery-related communication, whereafter immediate

3 steps were taken to seek professional assistance and to file the appeal before this Hon'ble Authority. 2A.5 The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant has a strong case on merits and denial of condonation would cause irreparable hardship. 2A.6 It is a settled principle of law that when sufficient cause is shown, delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 2A.7 The appellant therefore humbly prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.

4.

Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1.3 rejected the request for condonation of delay on the ground that the email id bsaropar100@gmail.com did belongs to the appellant for the reason that the same email id has been mentioned in Form No. 35 reproduced on page 8 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the same the Ld. CIT(A) did not accepted the contention of the appellant that the email id did not belongs to it.

5.

During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the other reasons for condonation of delay on medical ground as the appellant’s son was suffering from severe ailments and was bed ridden since 2022. The appellant also submitted medical reports during the course of hearing.

6.

The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and vehemently argued that such practice of delay should not be encouraged.

7.

The contentions of both the parties have been taken into consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) considered only one reason of the request for condonation of delay but failed to appreciate that the appellant’s son was suffering from severe ailment and was confined to bed. Therefore we deem it fit in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of AO for denovo assessment with direction to the assessee to ensure compliance before the AO.

4 8. In the result, appeal of the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 05/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- लिलत कुमार िवजय वमा� (LALIET KUMAR) (VIJAY VARMA) �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →