MUKESH KUMAR , MADHAVKUNJ COLONY KHADRI ROAD, SHYAMPUR FATAK SHYAMPUR, DEHRADUN-249204, UTTARAKHAND,MADHAVKUNJ COLONY KHADRI ROAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ,DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 186/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 June 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial delay but, considering the COVID-19 period and the assessee's detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances, felt the assessee deserved a second chance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) more than four years after the AO's order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, not accepting the assessee's reasons related to the COVID-19 period and the alleged carelessness of his tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR (VC)
Hearing: 23.06.2026

ITA No.186/DDN/2026 MUKESH KUMAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.186/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 MUKESH KUMAR, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Madhavkunj Colony, Khadri Road, Shyampur TAX (APPEALS), Fatak Shyampur, Dehradun 249204, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand. 249204. PAN No. AWJPK8065A Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR (VC) Date of hearing: 23.06.2026 Pronouncement on 25.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 11.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order that while the appeal has been filed on 30.01.2026, the order appealed against (AO’s order) was dated 23.09.2021. Accordingly, there is an indication about a delay of more than four years in the filing of first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has not approved of the reasons for delay given in Item 15 of Form 35 filed before him. It is further observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for not believing the contention of the assessee that the Ld. AO’s order was passed during COVID-19 period and the tax consultant

ITA No.186/DDN/2026 MUKESH KUMAR retained by the assessee was careless in not promptly bringing the facts to the notices of the assessee and also informing him of the need to file timely appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine, by invoking the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act.

2.

On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. It is also seen that all the grounds in Form 36 filed by the assessee challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay and thereafter not adjudicating the case on merits.

3.

The Ld. DR took us through the assessment order and pointed out that even before the Ld. AO the assessee had not responded to any of the notices sent from his office. The Ld. DR read extensively on page 2 of the Ld. AO’s order in this respect. The Ld. DR also took us through a sworn affidavit filed, before this Bench, by the assessee through which detailed justifications for the delay have been given. For the sake of reference some portions from the said affidavit deserve to be extracted: -

………………..

“3. Reliance on Advocate That I was getting my income-tax matters handled through advocate authorized representative whose email ID and mobile number were registered on the income-tax portal for receiving all communications.

ITA No.186/DDN/2026 MUKESH KUMAR 4. Non-communication by Advocate That all notices and communications, including the assessment order, were received on the email ID of my earlier advocate and were not communicated to me in a timely manner. ………. 5. Lack of Technical Knowledge That I am a small business man with limited education and not conversant with legal and technical procedures, especially under the faceless regime. 6. Explanation of Delay Period a) Period 2021-2022 That the assessment order was passed during/around COVID period and I was under the bona fide belief that my tax matters were being handled properly by my advocate. b) Period 2022-2024 That due to lack of communication. c) Payment made in 2024 (Addressing CIT(A) objection) That it is true that I made certain payments towards the demand in the year 2024 under coercive recovery by the Department. However, I respectfully submit:  Such payment was made to avoid hardship and recovery action;  The same does not mean that I was fully aware of my appellate rights or legal remedies. d) Action in 2026 That upon obtaining correct professional advice, I immediately took steps and filed appeal before CIT(A), though belatedly. 7. Time consumed in verification and collection of documents a) That in order to verify the correctness of such addition, I had to:  communicate with the partnership firm;  obtain clarification regarding the transactions;

ITA No.186/DDN/2026 MUKESH KUMAR  collect relevant documents including audit report and financial records. b) That the above process took considerable time due to:  dependence on third-party records;  delay in coordination and communication. 8. Bona Fide Conduct That the delay has occurred due to circumstances beyond my control and not due to any negligence, inaction or mala fide intention. 9. No Intentional Delay That I had no intention to delay the proceedings and have always acted in a bona fide manner.” The Ld. DR fairly left it to the Bench to decide whether or not to remit this matter back to the file of the authorities below.

4.

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and we have gone through the records before us. We have also perused the affidavit filed by the assessee through which detailed reasons have been given for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). Right at the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that the delay is substantial and the assessee has not been diligent enough in pursuing his matter before the authorities below. However, we are acutely aware of the fact that judicial forums are meant to dispense justice and as far as possible, issues of limitation should be liberally dealt with. We draw sustenance from the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072/28 ELT 185, where the limitation issue and how to deal with it has been extensively dealt with. We are also guided by the

ITA No.186/DDN/2026 MUKESH KUMAR case of State of Gujarat vs. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross AIR 1981 SS 1921 (SC), where the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when there is remiss on the part of the Advocate, the question that comes up for consideration is whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover up the ulterior performance such as latches on the part of the litigation, or an attempt to save limitation in an under hand way. We find from the facts of this case that the assessment proceedings were happening during COVID time and the assessee has filed a detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. At this stage, we feel that the assessee deserves a second chance to prove his bona fides and since we find that the facts have not been thrashed out at either of the lower levels and hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh assessment. The assessee would do well to respond promptly to the notices that would be issued by the Ld. AO.

5.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.186/DDN/2026 MUKESH KUMAR

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 →