HARI CHAND GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1748/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 June 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's prolonged illness. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 327 days, citing prolonged illness. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of this delay. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, also with a delay of 49 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay caused by the assessee's illness should be condoned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Prabodh Sharma, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1748/CHD/2025
S.A.No. 41/CHD/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee feeling

aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A) ’] dated 20.08.2025 for

the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

There is a delay in filing the appeal for 49 days. For the

reasons given in the affidavit and the application, the delay in

filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing

on merit.

3.

At the outset, ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the

ld.CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the

ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT

(Appeals) was delayed for a period of 327 days. It was submitted

that the assessee, for the reasons mentioned in the application

for condonation of delay has explained reasons for not filing the

appeal in time before the ld.CIT (Appeals) and it was mentioned

in the reasons that the assessee was bed-ridden for a longer time

and was not able to communicate with the counsel/C.A. and

ITA 1748/CHD/2025 & SA 41/CHD/2026 A.Y. 2016-17 3

therefore, there was impediment in filing the appeal before the

ld.CIT (Appeals). It was submitted that the matter may be

remanded back to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) with a direction to

condone the delay and to decide the appeal on merit after

condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

4.

Per contra, the ld. DR objected to the remanding back as it

was submitted that the assessee should be vigilant in pursuing

the matter before ld.CIT (Appeals).

5.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and

perused the material available on record. Admittedly the assessee

was incapable being suffering from protracted illness and

therefore, was not able to file the appeal before the ld.CIT

(Appeals). It is settled law that the income tax litigation is not a

adversary litigation and the lenient and pragmatic view should

be adopted by the CIT (Appeals) while deciding the condonation

of delay application. In our considered view, the reasons given

by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) are plausible and

reasonable because for not filing the appeal before the CIT

(Appeals) within the statutory period of time is provided by the

ITA 1748/CHD/2025 & SA 41/CHD/2026 A.Y. 2016-17 4

Act. In our view, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT

(Appeals) is required to be condoned and accordingly, we condone

the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals).

6.

Having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the

ld.CIT (Appeals) and as ld.CIT (Appeals) has not adjudicated the

appeal on merit despite the mandate of law, therefore, we deem it

appropriate to remand back the matter to the ld.CIT (Appeals)

with a direction to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with

law after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the light of the above, the appeal of the assessee is

allowed for statistical purposes.

S.A. NO.41/CHD/2026

8.

The assessee has filed an application for grant of stay

against the impugned remand. Since we have remanded back the

appeal bearing No. 1748/CHD/2025 to the file of the ld.CIT

(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, therefore, the Stay Application

filed by the assessee has become infructuous. However, it is made

clear that the Department shall not enforce the demand against

ITA 1748/CHD/2025 & SA 41/CHD/2026 A.Y. 2016-17 5

the assessee till pendency of the appeal before the ld.CIT

(Appeals).

9.

In view of the above, the Stay Application filed by the

assessee is disposed of.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is

disposed of. Order pronounced on 30th June,2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Chandigarh.

Assistant Registrar

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →