RATI RAM DUDHWAL,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD NEEMKATHANA, NEMKATHANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 442/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 October 2026AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned JCIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay. While the assessee's attempt to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, as a matter of course, based on the Supreme Court's order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, was not entirely correct because the limitation expired before March 15, 2020, the Tribunal considered the pandemic and its restrictions as relevant factors for assessing 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal noted that the delay of 1032 days (as calculated by the Tribunal) was explained by a rectification application filed under section 154, the subsequent order, reliance on the chartered accountant, and the pandemic. The Tribunal found the sequence of events consistent with the explanation and observed that the assessee, an individual from a rural area, relied on professional advice. The Tribunal distinguished the case from C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT, where the delay was significantly longer and the facts were materially different. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restored the appeal to the file of the JCIT(A) for a decision on merits. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the adjustment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rati Ram Dudhwal, an individual, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring nil income. The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return under section 143(1) and issued an intimation on March 27, 2019, computing total income at Rs. 58,54,030 and raising a demand. The assessee received the intimation on April 10, 2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [JCIT(A)] on March 7, 2022, which was delayed by 1045 days from the intimation. The JCIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay application and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee's present appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is against this order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned JCIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1045 days in filing the appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)? Assessee's Contentions: - The delay before the first appellate authority arose from the advice of the chartered accountant and the COVID-19 pandemic. - The assessee derived no advantage from the delay. - The addition of the entire gross receipts as income without allowing expenses or considering section 44AE of the Act raised a serious issue on merits. - Relying on the Supreme Court's order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, should be excluded, significantly reducing the delay. - The delay should be condoned to decide the matter on merits. Revenue's Contentions: - The delay was inordinate and not explained with sufficient cause. - The learned JCIT(A)'s order rejecting the condonation of delay is correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 249,Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Prakash, Accountant Member ITA No: 442/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Rati Ram Dudhwal ITO, Dudhwalon Ki Dhani, VPO Ward Neemkathana, Gadhtaknet Ajeet Garh, Vs Sikar (Respondent) Sikar PAN: AOAPD2615J (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Sh. Shravan Gupta, Adv. And Sh. Ramit Sharma, Adv. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Namita Patel, JCIT Date of hearing : 22-09-2026 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2026 आदेश/ORDER

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [hereinafter referred to as "the learned JCIT(A)"] dated 04.12.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18, arising out of the intimation dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Centralised Processing Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under:

"1. The impugned order u/s 250 r.w.s. 143(1) dt. 04.12.2025 dismissing the appeal is bad in law, illegal, invalid, and void ab-initio on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation, without proper approval OR satisfaction and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the same on condonation of delay ignoring the sufficient material and evidences available on record, being the strong case on merit. Hence the order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in gross breach of law and against the principal of natural justice and liable to be quashed and entire additions so made by the Ld. AO may kindly be deleted.

3.

Rs.58,54,030/- The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.58,54,030/- on account of income from other source as against the nil income and also erred in taking the entire receipts as income by not allowing the expenses. Hence the addition/disallowance so made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.

4.

Alternatively and without prejudice to GOA 3, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed and the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not assessing the income u/s 44AE OR the income may be assessed u/s 44AE on the receipts shown in 26AS. Hence the addition/disallowance so made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.

5.

The appellant prays your honours indulgences to add, amend OR alter any of the grounds of the appeal on OR before the date of hearing."

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessee, an individual, filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 13.01.2018 declaring nil income. The CPC processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act by intimation dated 27.03.2019 and computed the total income at Rs 58,54,030, raising a demand of Rs 21,50,610 including interest. According to Form No. 35, the intimation was served on the Assessee on 10.04.2019. The Assessee filed the appeal before the learned JCIT(A) on 07.03.2022. The learned JCIT(A) computed the delay at 1045 days from the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and 813 days from the order under section 154 of the Act. By the impugned order, the learned JCIT(A) held that the reasons given did not constitute sufficient cause, rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine under section 249 of the Act without going into the merits. The present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 26.02.2026, within the period allowed by section 253(3) of the Act.

4.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned AR") filed a paper book of 165 pages, which includes the condonation application and the written submissions filed before the learned JCIT(A) and is certified to contain only papers that were before the lower authority. The learned AR submitted that the delay before the first appellate authority arose from the advice of the Assessee's chartered accountant and the pandemic, that the Assessee derived no advantage from the delay, and that the addition of the entire gross receipts as income, without allowing any expenditure or considering section 44AE of the Act, raised a serious issue on merits. A supplementary prayer for condonation dated 22.09.2026 was filed along with a copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022. In it, the learned AR contended that, after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the appeal could be filed up to 30.03.2022; that the order under section 154 of the Act 3

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal was received in November 2019; and that only about three months, from December 2019 to 15.03.2020, had lapsed. The names of the earlier and the present chartered accountants were also furnished. The learned AR prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be decided on merits. The learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned DR") relied on the impugned order and submitted that the delay was inordinate and was not explained with sufficient cause.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only question before us is whether the learned JCIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay. Grounds 3 and 4 relate to the merits of the adjustment, which the learned JCIT(A) has not examined.

6.

Section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. The expression "sufficient cause" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). At paragraph 3 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice — that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. ... And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3.

"Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4.

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.

5.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6.

It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

7.

The learned JCIT(A) treated the entire period of 1045 days as delay. In the supplementary prayer, the Assessee relies on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), dated 10.01.2022, which is binding on all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. Direction (I) of paragraph 5 of that order reads as under:

"The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders 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 purposes of

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings."

8.

The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court binds the first appellate authority, which acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. The question is whether the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 can be excluded where the limitation had already expired before 15.03.2020. The scheme of the order is to save the period of limitation that was available on 15.03.2020. It does not revive a limitation that had already run out. The very question arose before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Pr. CIT v. Milestone Gears (P.) Ltd. [2024] 162 taxmann.com 472 (HP). In that case, the limitation for filing an appeal under section 260A of the Act had expired on 08.02.2020, and the appeal was filed with a delay of 1085 days. The Hon'ble High Court held as under at paragraphs 13 to 15:

"13. The said period ended on 08th February, 2020. Thereafter from around 15th March, 2020 the Covid Pandemic started, and in view of the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dt. 10.01.2022 titled Conginzance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307/441 ITR 722 directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 would stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It further stated that if limitation had expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022.

14.

However, in the instant case, the limitation having expired prior to 15.03.2020 on 08.02.2020 itself, the applicant cannot get the benefit of the said period of 90 days on 28.02.2022.

15.

Admittedly, the instant appeal has been preferred on 12.10.2022, 224 days after 28.02.2022. No valid explanation for this period of delay is mentioned in the

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal application. We are also of the opinion that the date on which Income Tax Appeal no.10/2019 was disposed of as infructuous on 28.06.2022 had no relevance, since the order impugned in that ITA and in the instant ITA would be different orders."

9.

Respectfully following it, we hold that the Assessee cannot claim the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as a matter of course. The limitation of thirty days from the service of the intimation on 10.04.2019 expired on 10.05.2019. The delay up to the filing of the appeal on 07.03.2022 is thus 1032 days. The impugned order puts it at 1045 days, but the difference is not material. The whole of this delay has to be explained under section 249(3) of the Act.

10.

We are unable to accept the computation in the supplementary prayer in its entirety. The appeal before the learned JCIT(A) was directed against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and not against the order under section 154 of the Act. Further, direction (III) of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which allows a period of 90 days from 01.03.2022, applies only where the limitation would have expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. Here, the limitation expired in May 2019. Even if it were reckoned from the receipt of the order under section 154 of the Act in November 2019, it would have expired in December 2019. Either way, it expired before 15.03.2020, and the Assessee cannot claim that the appeal was filed within time.

11.

That, however, does not end the enquiry. The pandemic and the restrictions that followed are matters of common knowledge. The circumstances that led the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass the order remain relevant in judging whether the Assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal during that period, even though the exclusion does not apply by its own force. A similar approach was adopted by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Atul J. Shah v. ITO [2024] 159 7

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal taxmann.com 1547 (Mumbai - Trib.), where the limitation for filing the appeal had expired before the lockdown. The Bench took the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 into account "on account of difficulty of the Appellant to engaged/meet tax consultant" (paragraph 11) and condoned a delay of 1255 days. Viewed in this manner, the delay of 1032 days and the explanation for each part of it are as under:

Period Days Explanation on record 309 11.05.2019 Rectification application under section 154 of the to Act filed on 09.05.2019 on the advice of the 14.03.2020 chartered accountant, decided on 31.10.2019 and received in November 2019; thereafter, reliance on the chartered accountant 716 15.03.2020 Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions that followed to 28.02.2022 7 01.03.2022 Appeal filed within days of the receipt, on to 28.02.2022, of the demand notice dated 07.03.2022 26.02.2022 Total 1032 12. The explanation offered is supported by an affidavit. The learned JCIT(A) has not found the averments to be false. The sequence of events, namely the rectification application, the order under section 154 of the Act, the demand notice dated 26.02.2022 and the filing of the appeal within a few days thereafter, is consistent with the explanation. The Assessee is an individual from a rural area who relied on professional advice. The choice of remedy under section 154 of the Act, instead of an appeal, was that of the counsel. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Assessee deliberately kept away from the appellate remedy or gained any advantage from the delay. On the other hand, a refusal to condone the delay leaves standing an income computed on gross receipts without any deduction, which the Assessee disputes on merits.

13.

The learned JCIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 8

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal 257 (SC). As noted in the impugned order itself, that was a case of a delay of six to seven years in filing an appeal before the Tribunal, where the assessee was aware of the orders and did not take any care to enquire about the status of the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the concurrent findings on those facts. The facts of the present case are materially different, as discussed above, particularly after the exclusion of the period covered by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision therefore does not advance the case of the Revenue on the facts before us.

14.

Having regard to the above, we are satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal before the learned JCIT(A) is condoned. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the learned JCIT(A) for a decision on merits in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee shall cooperate in the appellate proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of the adjustment. Ground 2 is allowed. Grounds 3 and 4 do not require adjudication at this stage and shall be decided by the learned JCIT(A). Ground 1 is general in nature and does not survive for separate adjudication in view of the above. Ground 5 is general in nature and requires no adjudication.

15.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (PRAKASH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 442/JPR/2026 Rati Ram Dudhwal Dated 27/10/2026 *Ganesh Kr., Sr. PS आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT Ganesh Digitally signed by 4. CIT (A) Ganesh Kumar 5. DR, ITAT Kumar Date: 2026.11.02 6. Guard file. 10:40:45 +05'30' By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, t;iqj

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →