SANJEEV MAGGU,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-49(1), DELHI

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, under Section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 26.12.2022 for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case, has dismissed assessee’s appeal solely on the ground that there was delay of 42 days in filing the appeal, thus barred by limitation. He submitted that before the NFAC the assessee had filed condonation application, supported by affidavit, explaining that the 2 ITA 342/Del/2025 Sanjeev Maggu v. ITO counsel of the assessee who was entrusted with the responsibility of filing the appeal being stuck up with other personal matters and the appeal could not be filed by the advocate appearing for the assessee and it was only after the receipt of show cause notice dated 10.02.2023 received by the assessee on 22.02.2023 the assessee approached the counsel and thereafter the appeal could be filed. The Ld. First Appellate Authority did not accept this very submission made on behalf of the assessee and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible, inter alia, by observing as under: “There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 42 days in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay of 42 days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible. Hence stand dismissed.” Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewal Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361. 3. I have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly there was delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee had filed condonation application, along with affidavit of assessee’s counsel, explaining the delay in filing the appeal. However, having regard to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay which appears to be acceptable, the delay in preferring appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 4. The appeal is disposed of by remitting the matter to the Ld. CIT(A), to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, upon granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on 3 ITA 342/Del/2025 Sanjeev Maggu v. ITO record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 17.04.2025. (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY)

JUDICIAL MEMBER
*MP*