SARIF KHAN,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1868/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2013-14)

Sarif Khan Vs. ITO Kalani & Co LLP, Ward 1(1), Chartered Accountants, Alwar 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:BQBPK 3664G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Departmentby : Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 30.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 25.09.2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1868/JPR/2025 Sarif Khan 2. Theappeal is noted to be delayed for filing by 384 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed before us, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:- 1. I am an illiterate villager engaged in the business of executing sub-contract work at various civil construction site offered to me by the main contractor. Apart from this, 1 also execute certain small contracts directly.

Hence the delay in filing the appeal before Hon ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing for imparting substantial justice.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1868/JPR/2025 Sarif Khan 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated before us that he is an illiterate villager engaged in small contract business and is not conversant with electronic communications. The email address registered on the e-filing portal belongs to his son, who does not regularly access the same. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings and the order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC. 4. It is further submitted that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of his appeal only on 26.11.2025, upon receipt of an SMS from the CPC, Bengaluru. Thereafter, on the advice of his tax consultant, CA Mohit Khandelwal, Alwar, he approached CA P.C. Parwal of Kalani & Co., LLP, Jaipur, and initiated steps to file the present appeal. 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned. 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. The law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) laid down that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1868/JPR/2025 Sarif Khan mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. 8. We have considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and the material available on record. Having regard to the assessee's circumstances and the reasons stated for the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.We accordingly condone the delay of 384 days in the filing of the present appeal before us. Order was pronounced in the Open Court. 9. Proceeding to adjudicate the appeal, it was common ground that the assessment order passed was ex parte while the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable not condoning the delay of 42 days in filing of the appeal before him. He had also passed order on merits ex parte rejecting all the grounds raised by the assessee. 10. The delay of 42 days was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A). Considering the explanation of the assessee, which was to the same effect as that filed before us for condoning the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal before us. He had stated that he was a villager and a small sub- contractor not aware about the income tax proceedings and not aware about online submissions and replies and the email id was of his son which was not regularly browsed. That his family was badly affected by Corona Pandemic and therefore the delay of 42 days occurred in filing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) held the reasons to be not sufficient cause for the filing of appeal before him. However, since for identical reasons, we

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1868/JPR/2025 Sarif Khan have held that the same constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal before us. We accordingly hold that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in not condoning the delay of 42 days before him. The delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly condoned. 11. Further noting the assessment has been framed ex parte, treating the cash deposited in his bank account as from unexplained sources, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO to be considered afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. In effect, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 29.10.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Mittali Digitally signed by: Mittali Asst. Registrar DN: CN = Mittali email = ITAT, Jaipur mittaligupta34671@gmail.com C = IN O = Personal Date: 2026.10.30 12:55:15 +05'30'