SOM PRAKASH TIWARI,GWALIOR vs. ITO 1(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 716/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The Tribunal took judicial notice of the period of the global COVID-19 pandemic, referencing the Supreme Court's order in Misc. Application No. 21/2022, which excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for the purpose of limitation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The ITAT found the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay to be sufficient, especially considering the pandemic period. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that parties should not be ordinarily denied the opportunity to participate in justice dispensation. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Som Prakash Tiwari, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on September 17, 2026. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal in limine due to a delay in filing. The first appeal was filed on April 9, 2026, against an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated December 10, 2020, resulting in a delay of approximately 1914 days. The assessee, a retired SBI employee with limited knowledge of income tax, cited his lack of understanding and the subsequent discovery of legal interpretations favoring retrospective benefits for leave encashment as reasons for the delay. The ITAT noted that the assessee was unrepresented, and the revenue was represented by its Senior Departmental Representative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's first appeal in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, contrary to law? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the first appeal was unintentional and caused by circumstances beyond his control. As a retired SBI employee, he lacked sufficient knowledge of income tax laws. He only became aware of the correct legal position regarding retrospective benefits for leave encashment after perusing decisions of various tribunals, which prompted him to file the appeal belatedly. The assessee contended that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds and that the delay should be condoned. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions made by the revenue's Senior Departmental Representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 27.10.2026Pronounced: 27.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 716/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Som Prakash Tiwari, V ITO 1(1), F 60 Harishankarpuram, Aayakar Bhawan, Gwalior-474002 City Centre, Gwalior- 474011 PAN: AAYPT3214H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 27.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.10.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2026 passed in appeal No ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 GUWAHATI/10076/ 2019-20 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 GUWAHATI [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay.

ITA No.716/Agr/2026 2. Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first appeal in limine by not condoning the delay caused in filing the first appeal, which is contrary to law. 3. Assessee’s adjournment prayer was rejected. Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 4. At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 09.04.2026 against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 10.12.2020 by a delay of about 1914 days. The reasons stated for the delay before ld CIT(A) were that the assessee was a retired SBI, employee, who had little knowledge of income tax. Assessee had offered to tax the part amount of leave encashment received after his superannuation in F.Y. 2019-20. When the assessee came to know about the correct legal position interpreted by various tribunals who granted retrospective benefit to other employees, he filed the first appeal belatedly, which is purely un-intentional and caused by circumstances beyond appellant’s control. 5. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed

2 | P a g e

ITA No.716/Agr/2026 period. Ld CIT(A), however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine. 6. We take judicial notice of the fact that the duration of delay caused in filing appeal before the first appellate authority overlaps the period of spread of global pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken care of, by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated 10.01.2022, the Apex Court directed that its order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent order dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings after exclusion of the aforesaid duration. So the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was to be excluded accordingly. 7. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of

3 | P a g e

ITA No.716/Agr/2026 participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice can not to be followed. The cause shown on behalf of the assessee appears to us to be sufficient to condone the remaining delay also. We, accordingly condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 17.09.2026 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e. learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit after considering the authoritative precedent brought on record by the ld AR, in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 27.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 28.10.2026

4 | P a g e

ITA No.716/Agr/2026

*Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →