ANJU VERMA,FULAI GANAI CHAUKHUTIA ALMORA vs. WARD 2(3)(2) ALMORA, ALMORA

This appeal arises from order dated 11.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned a delay of 201 days in the filing of first appeal and has given a finding that the reasons given for the same do not satisfy the demands of section 249(3) of the Act and thereafter, he dismissed the appeal in limine.

Before us the Ld.AR took us through the grounds of appeal and also the fact that there were good and sufficient reasons for delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and the peculiar circumstances leading to the delay were duly brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) deserved to be condoned and the matter remanded back to him for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AR read out from para 6.4 at page 12 of the impugned order, where the reasons for delay were duly mentioned.

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have also gone through the records before us. It is seen that on page 12 of the impugned order, the reasons for delay have been mentioned as serious illness of the tax consultant – Shri B.C. Aggarwal, who was totally paralyzed and admitted in hospital, with attendant medical complications. We feel that this constitutes sufficient reason for condoning the delay at first appellate stage. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.