SONIA JAWA,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide 'sufficient cause' related to personal exigencies and not a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Substantial justice should not be defeated by technical considerations.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with the Ld. CIT(A) against an assessment order for AY 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a delay of 134 days, which the assessee attributed to personal hardship due to providing care for a sister-in-law suffering from cancer.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a 'sufficient cause' and if the appeal should be admitted on merits despite the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22/05/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/05/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M:

This is an appeal filed by the Assesse against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 28/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of delay in filing the appeal beyond the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed under section 147/144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022.

3.

The appeal was filed on 08.09.2022, resulting in a delay of 134 days. The assessee had explained that the delay occurred due to personal hardship in the family, as she was actively engaged in providing care and support to her sister- in-law who was suffering from cancer.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay holding that the cause shown by the assessee was not sufficient and failed to meet the statutory requirement of “sufficient cause” under section 249(3) of the Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.

5.

Ld. AR submitted that The delay was not deliberate, intentional or due to any disregard of legal obligations, but occurred due to compelling and unavoidable personal circumstances. The assessee was engaged in providing full-time care and emotional support to her sister-in-law, who was undergoing a prolonged and terminal illness (cancer). The entire family, including the assessee, was involved in ensuring round-the-clock care, which inadvertently led to a delay in compliance with legal timelines. It was prayed that delay in filling the appeal may kindly be condoned and Ld. CIT(A) be directed to decide the appeal on merit.

6.

Per conra Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authority.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In our considered view, the reasons advanced by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) appear to be bona fide and fall within the scope of “sufficient cause” as envisaged under the Act and as interpreted by judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), wherein it was held that substantial justice should not be defeated by technical considerations. 7.1 The explanation given by the assessee is based on personal exigencies and does not reflect any deliberate or malafide intent to delay the proceedings. We are of the opinion that the assessee deserves an opportunity

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →