AJAY KUMAR,USA vs. ITO KNP W 17 1, GHAZIABAD

ITA 6919/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 October 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay of 783 days was sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), emphasizing that the power to condone delay is to enable courts to do substantial justice and that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold. The Tribunal found that the assessee's reasons, including being a non-resident and lack of immediate access to legal counsel, constituted genuine hardship. Since the Revenue did not bring any contrary material on record, the Tribunal considered it a fit case for condonation. Consequently, the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 60 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ajay Kumar, is appealing against an order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 due to a delay of 783 days in filing. The assessee had sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as being a non-resident since 2005 and inability to seek professional help while in the USA. The assessee visited India in March and consulted a tax consultant, who advised filing an appeal. The assessee argued that the delay was due to genuine hardship and lack of legal counsel. The Revenue contended that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The ITAT noted the Supreme Court's ruling on condoning delays to do substantial justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 783 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the explanation provided by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by genuine hardship, being a non-resident since 2005, and the subsequent inability to obtain professional advice. Upon visiting India and consulting a tax consultant, the appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay. The assessee relied on the principle of substantial justice and the liberal approach adopted by courts in condoning delays, as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below, submitting that the assessee had not attributed any sufficient cause for filing the belated appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, and no interference was warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.03.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein the appeal has been dismissed while refusing condonation of delay of 783 days in filing the appeal by the assessee/appellant.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. However, the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A) stating that sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee in 2 Ajay Kumar

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →