RUPINDER KAUR,KHAMANO, FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SIRHIND
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Judicial Member found the explanations furnished by the assessee for the delay to be vague, general, and wholly unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted the absence of any material demonstrating sincere efforts by the assessee to ascertain the status of her case from her representatives. The Tribunal expressed disapproval of the practice of attributing blame for delay to professionals without supporting material. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others, the Tribunal held that the factual matrix of the present appeal was squarely covered by the ratio laid down in that case. The reasons provided in the assessee's affidavit were deemed insufficient to establish any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the request for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rupinder Kaur, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated August 30, 2023, for assessment year 2017-18. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 590 days. The assessee's grounds of appeal included that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte, non-speaking order without considering the facts, grounds, and evidence submitted, and that the CIT(A) upheld illegal additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) despite the assessee being an agriculturist whose bank deposits were from agricultural receipts. The assessee also argued that certain cash deposits were explainable and not subject to sections 69A and 115BBE. The assessee sought to have the matter remanded back to the AO. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 590 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to her being an old, illiterate villager, not tech-savvy, and under the bonafide belief that her previous counsel would handle the appeal. She claimed that hearing notices might have been sent to incorrect email IDs belonging to her son in New Zealand or her former counsel, leading to the oversight. She also stated that she only became aware of the dismissal of her appeal when her bank accounts were attached. The assessee relied on her affidavit explaining the circumstances and sought an opportunity to present her case on merits before the CIT(A). Revenue's contentions: The revenue strongly opposed the request for condonation of the inordinate delay, arguing that the explanations provided were vague, general, and unsubstantiated. The revenue contended that no material evidence was presented to show sincere efforts by the assessee to ascertain the status of her case from her representatives. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 30.08.2023, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under:
That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case.
That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deciding the appeal on the merits of the case and is not justified in passing in limine, ex parte order, not on merits & tolly non speaking 2 o
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
