VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)5, GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR
ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2012-13
VINAY KUMAR SINGH,
D-34, Sector-41, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh 201301, INDIA.
PAN No.AFPPS6516P
बनाम
Vs.
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
Ward 5(2)(5),
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
03.03.2026
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 11.03.2026
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. The present appeal no. 6683/Del/2025 arises from order dated
26.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereafter as “the Act”).
1.1
In these cases, the main ground on which the assessee has been denied relief at first appellate stage is because there was a delay of 1778
days in filing of the first appeal in ITA No.6683. Furthermore, in ITA 6684
there was a delay of 977 days in the filing of first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the said delays as he found that the reasons given for ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025
the same was not sufficient to escape the provisions contained in section 249(3) of the Act.
2. In this case, before us, none attended on behalf of the assessee on the last date of hearing. However, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.
3. The Ld. DR pointed out that in both the appeals the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the inadequacy of the reasons given for requesting condonation of delay. The Ld. DR pointed out pages 9 to 17 of the impugned order in ITA No.6684/Del/2025. Similarly in ITA 6683 the Ld.
DR pointed out to pages 13 to 20, where the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the insufficiency of reasons given for condonation of the delay before him.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us.On aconsideration of the judicial precedents on the issue of condonation of delay, the following case laws would be relevant:
“i.
In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 (SC) 3222, the Supreme Court of India has explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under:
"... The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the Parties and to advance substantial Justice, Time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy... for the redress of the legal injury so suffered... the law of limitation is thus founded on public policy...."
(p. 3224)
ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025
ii.
In Shankar Rao v. Chandrasen Kunwar [1987] Suppl. SCC 338, the Supreme Court of India took the view that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
iii.
In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra [1977] 47
Comp. Cas. 453 (SC); the Supreme Court of India held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression 'Sufficient
Cause' should receive a liberal construction.
iv.
In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575, the Supreme Court of India held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
v.
In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Supreme
Court of India held that, if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay.
vi.
In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court of India considered a large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC
572; Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487; Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37; Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
AIR 1962 SC 361; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi
[1979] 118 ITR 507, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that the expression 'each day's delay must be explained', does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and it must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
vii.
The Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst.
Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 and many other cases on the subject, culled out the following principles relating to condonation of delay, which are reproduced from judgment, because of the all- time importance of the subject:
"1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
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 and pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves
ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025
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 the 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."
(p. 473)”
4.1
It is felt that the benefit of doubt must be given to the assessee and he must have a chance to prove his bonafides before the First
Appellate Authority.We accordingly direct that delay should be condoned and the appeal of ITA 6683 should be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). The matter is remanded back accordingly.
5. Since the quantum appeal has been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), hence, the penalty in ITA No.6684 cannot survive. However, liberty is given to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-initiating the penalty in case any quantum of addition is sustained at first appellate stage.
6. In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2026 (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 11.03.2026
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.
ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025
5