GURMEET KAUR,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 851/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 August 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 33 days. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's earlier appeal in limine due to a delay of 157 days in filing before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits. Whether the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 69A

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: PHYSICAL MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी िवजय वमा� , लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. VIJAY VARMA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 851 /Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Gurmeet Kaur बनाम The ITO Village Dhareri Jattan, Podhareri Ward-5, Patiala Jattan Janherian, Patiala- Punjab - 147021 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CSSPK4582M अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Chauhan, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/08/2026 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(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 01/12/2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 in appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10396851.

2.

At the outset, the Registry pointed out that there is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay on several grounds mentioning the fact that the appellant is a house maker, not very educated and the email address on record was of her sister.

3.

The Ld. DR opposed the application for condonation of delay.

4.

We have heard both the parties and request for seeking condonation of delay. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the reasons explained therein, we are satisfied that the appellant was

prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication subject to directions in para 8.1 of this order.

5.

In this appeal the appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the same on merits, solely on the ground of alleged delay in filing the appeal. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring that the appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay, which was neither intentional nor deliberate. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was not aware of the assessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order, as the PAN of the appellant was not registered on the income tax portal and no proper service of notice was effected. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessment order was duly served electronically, without appreciating that there was no effective or valid service in accordance with law. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant acted promptly upon gaining knowledge of the assessment order and filed the appeal without undue delay thereafter. 7. That the Ld, CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that technicalities of limitation should not override substantial justice, particularly where no mala fide or negligence can be attributed to the appellant. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretionary power vested under section 249(3) of the Act judiciously and in a liberal manner. 9. That the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is itself bad in law, having been framed without proper service of notice u/s 148 and without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 10. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 47,94,536/- u/s 69A of the Act without any cogent material or evidence and without establishing that the alleged investment belonged to the appellant.

11.

That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay of 157 days without appreciating that the appellant was not aware of the assessment order and had filed the appeal promptly upon gaining knowledge thereof. It was prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

7.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the explanation furnished by the appellant and in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) shall decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appellant is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings.

8.1 At the same time the conduct of the assessee leading to delay of 157 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and non compliance before the Assessing Officer cannot be completely ignored. There has also been delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore the cost for the same is to be imposed on the appellant. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, while restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

"The assessee is directed to undertake the plantation of 75 trees in total comprising 25 Peepal trees (Sacred Fig), 25 Neem trees (Margosa) , and 25 Bargad trees (Banyan) being trees of Indian origin, with each sapling having a minimum height of four feet at a suitable place having regard to serving the larger public interest, as a cost imposed under this para.".

8.2 The aforesaid plantation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish documentary evidence in support of compliance with the said direction, including photographs evidencing the plantation activity. Such evidence shall be filed before the Assessing Officer as well as the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal within the stipulated period.

9.

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 : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

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 →