DINESH KUMAR JANGIR,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1035/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2013-14)

Dinesh Kumar Jangir Vs. ITO House No.5, Chandani Ward 1(1), Chowk, New Colony, Jaipur Kalwar Road, Jaipur 302012 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AFUPJ 5795G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Sharma, CA (thru. V.C.) Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT Date of Hearing 02.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30/12/2024.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1035/JPR/2025 Dinesh Kumar Jangir 2. Theappeal is delayed for filing by 140 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay stating that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the counsel representing the assessee was attending to his critically ill father who was suffering from cancer at the time when the proceedings were going on before the AO/ Ld. CIT(A) and order was passed by him, and it was only on receipt of the penalty demand notice u/s 271(1)(c), in the first week of July 2025, that the assessee became aware of the pendency, and outcome of the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). That he reviewed the case status on the income tax portal, and discovered that the order had already been passed by the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, immediately thereafter, took urgent steps to prepare and finalise the appeal documents which were ultimately filed on 18.07.2025 with a delay of 139 days. The contents of the application filed by the assessee before me in this regard are as under:- MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS, The humble assessee most respectfully begs to submit as under: 1. That in the above-mentioned matter, the impugned appellate order was passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC on 30.12.2024, and was uploaded on the Income Tax Department's portal on the same day. Accordingly, prescribed due date for filing the appeal was 01.03.2025. However, the present appeal has been filed on 18.07.2025, resulting in a delay of 139 days 2. That the delay in filing the appeal occurred primarily due to unavoidable and unfortunate personal circumstances faced by the Counsel representing the assessee, Shri Narendra Goswami. His father was critically ill, suffering from cancer of the large intestine, and eventually passed away on 11.11.2024. As one of the primary caregivers, Shri Goswami had to devote significant time and attention to his ailing father, which severely impacted his ability to attend to his professional responsibilities, including the filing of this appeal. The emotional toll of the bereavement further compounded the situation, leading to an inadvertent lapse in the timely filing of the appeal. 3. That in addition to the above, the assessee did not receive any formal notice of demand from the Department in respect of the impugned order. The absence of such

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1035/JPR/2025 Dinesh Kumar Jangir communication further contributed to the inadvertent oversight and the assessee's lack of awareness regarding the status of the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). 4. It was only in the first week of July 2025, upon receipt of a penalty demand notice u/s 271(1)(c), that the assessee became aware of the pendency and outcome of the earlier matter. On inquiry, the Counsel reviewed the case status on the Income Tax Department'sportal and discovered that an order had already been passed. He immediately apprised the assessee of the position and advised filing an appeal at the earliest, but by then the limitation period had already lapsed. 5. Thereafter, urgent steps were taken to prepare and finalize the appeal documents. Despite best efforts, the said circumstances caused a delay, and the appeal could ultimately be filed only on 18.07.2025, with a delay of 139 days. 6. That under the facts and circumstances stated above, the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor attributable to any negligence or disregard on the part of the assessee. Rather, the delay arose due to circumstances beyond the control and anticipation of the assessee. 7. That the delay is purely inadvertent and not deliberate. The assessee has always been compliant with tax proceedings and has no history of delayed filings in the past. 8. Supporting Case Laws: 8.1 It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But, the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy." 9. An affidavit of the counsel of the assessee is filed and enclosed with this application to support the aforementioned facts.

Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this application may kindly be allowed by condoning the delay, taking a sympathetic view, in the interest of justice and oblige.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1035/JPR/2025 Dinesh Kumar Jangir to his personal exigencies the Professional could not attend the matter, and therefore ex parte orders were passed both by the AO and Ld. CIT(A). He therefore pleaded that the delay be condoned and the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing afresh by the AO in the interest of justice. 4. Ld. DR however, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. 5. On hearing contention of both the parties I am of the view that the assesses has made out sufficient cause for the delay in the filing of the present appeal before me, being attributed to the Professional engaged by the assessee to represent his matter who was attending to his own personal exigencies and emergencies relating to the serious ailment of his father, who was suffering from cancer. 6. Further, I have also noted the fact that while the assessee had filed no return of income in the impugned year, the AO had assessed the income multiple times at Rs.43,12,750/-, on account of the purchase made by the assessee of an immovable property, during the impugned year, the source of which remained unexplained. The addition made to the income of the assessee, therefore is substantial, and if the delay is not condoned, it will result in huge financial burden on the assessee including levy of penalty also ,without the assessee being heard. 7. Pitting therefore the technical consideration of delay in filing the present appeal against the financial implications of not condoning the delay, I am of the belief that the technical consideration needs to be overlooked, and the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1035/JPR/2025 Dinesh Kumar Jangir Iaccordingly, condoned the delay of 139 days in filing of the present appeal. 8. Further, noting the fact that both the assessment and the appellate order having been passed ex parte, I considered it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to diligently participate in the assessment proceedings failing which the AO is at liberty to reiterate the assessment order passed earlier. 9. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur