SACHIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60(7), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 846/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the faceless system and communication issues. The assessee filed a delayed appeal before the ITAT, citing reasons like illiteracy, miscommunication with a previous consultant, and financial hardship.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “A” BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCHES, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 846/DEL/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13) SACHIN ITO 640/C, GALI NUMBER13, VIJAY WARD 60(7) Vs. PAR, MAUJPUR, NORTH EAST NEW DELHI DELHI, NEW DELHI-110053 अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: BIFPS6278C

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh Amit Rustagi ,CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh Jitender Singh,CIT DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 19-May-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 19-May-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, A.M.: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 20/10636/2019-20 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 20.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 & 148 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 59 days. Before us, an application for condonation of delay was filed on 28.01.2026 wherein, it is stated that assessee is a small commission agent and trader in goods grain and

ITA 846/DEL/2026 SACHIN was not aware about the appellate procedures. The order passed by ld. CIT(A) was uploaded electronically and the Assessee, being not well-versed with the Faceless system and electronic procedure, could not promptly access/download the order in time and the assessee was under the Bonafide belief that his Chartered Accountant who had filed the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was taking care of the matter. However, later it is transpired that no proper representation was made before ld. CIT(A) and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Apart from this, the assessee was also facing financial and business difficulties which further delayed the process of obtaining professional assistance and preparation of appeal. Due to these reasons, the appeal was filed delayed before the Tribunal. The relevant contents of the application for condonation of delay is reproduced as under:- 1. “That the appellant is filing the present appeal under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.09.20245passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, under section 250 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. That as per the provisions of law, the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. However, due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the appellant, there has been a delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal. 3. That the delay has occurred due to the following reasons: 3.1. Illiteracy / Lack of Awareness: * The appellant is a small commission agent and trader in food grains and is not conversant with the complex appellate procedures of law. 3.2. NFAC/E-mail Communication Issues: * The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded electronically and the appellant, being not well-versed with the faceless system and electronic procedures, could not promptly access/download the order in time. This contributed to the delay. 3.3. Miscommunication with Previous Consultant: * The delay occurred because the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the Chartered Accountant who had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was representing the matter on merits. However, it later transpired that no proper representation was made before the CIT(A), and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 3.4. Discovery of Dismissal upon Recovery Notice:

ITA 846/DEL/2026 SACHIN * The appellant came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only upon receipt of the recovery notice from the Department. Immediately thereafter, the appellant consulted new counsel and has taken all prompt steps to file the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 3.5. Financial Hardship: * The appellant was also facing financial and business difficulties, which further delayed the process of obtaining professional assistance and preparing the appeal. 4. That the delay caused is purely inadvertent, bona fide, and not intentional. The appellant has not derived any benefit whatsoever from the delay. 5. That the appellant has a strong and meritorious case on merits, as the additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are arbitrary, excessive, and unsustainable in law. If the delay is not condoned, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury, whereas no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue by condoning the same. 6. That it is a settled law that technicalities should not come in the way of rendering substantive justice, and that when sufficient cause for delay is shown, the same ought to be condoned in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) and various other judicial pronouncements. Prayer In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly:  Condon the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal; and  Admit the appeal for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice. Kindly acknowledge receipt and take the appeal on record. We request you to kindly post it for hearing as per the convenience of Hon'ble Tribunal.”

2.1. It is thus, requested that the delay was neither intentional nor willful and occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and has bonafide reason thus, be condoned and decide the appeal on merits. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.

ITA 846/DEL/2026 SACHIN 4. Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 59 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is hereby, condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and the case was of the assessee was re-opened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2019. The AO had the information that assessee has made deposits of INR 37,32,36,836/- in the bank account and since no return was filed, the source of the same remained unexplained. Thereafter, notices were issued to the assessee from time to time however, the assessee has not made any compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act or any further notices issued u/s 142(1) or the show cause notice issued from time to time. Therefore, the AO had to pass the order wherein he has estimated the profit @ 8% in the total credit in the bank accounts maintained by the assessee with Bank of India and Punjab National Bank and accordingly, the business profits was estimated at INR 3,66,39,019/-. Besides this, a sum of INR 1,20,000/- being cash deposited in Punjab National Bank was separately added and accordingly, total income was assessed at INR 3,67,59,019/-.

ITA 846/DEL/2026 SACHIN 6. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 15.09.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution.

7.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various Grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.

8.

Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that assessee is a small commission agent and food grain trader and notices were sent online which were not communicated to the assessee as he was not aware of faceless system. He thus requests that in the larger interest of justice, one more opportunity be provided to the assessee so that the assessee could be able to file the details before the AO. On careful consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside both the orders of the lower authorities and remand back the matter to the file of AO with the directions to pass re-assessment order denovo afresh. Needless to say assessee be provided reasonable opportunities of being heard. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary evidences in support of the claim as and when called for. With these directions, all Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date- 28.07.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr. P.S*

ITA 846/DEL/2026 SACHIN Copy to: SACHIN, 640/C, GALI NUMBER13, VIJAY PAR, 1 MAUJPUR, NORTH EAST DELHI, NEW DELHI-110053 2 ITO WARD 60(7), NEW DELHI-, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →