PUSHPA RANI vs. ACIT & ANR.

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 237/2025

PUSHPA RANI

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate through VC

versus

ACIT & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSC, Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Ms. Yashika Gupta and Ms. Ravicha Sharma, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R %

22.07.2025

CM APPL. 43508/2025 (for exemption)

“a. Set-aside the impugned Order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Ld. ITAT New Delhi in ITA No. 358/Del/2022 titled as ‘Pushpa Rani vs. ACIT Central, Circle-09’, in the in the interest of justice; and/or b. Call the records of the Ld. Trial Court of the above noted case to examine the legality of the impugned order dated 23.12.2022. c. Set aside the orders dated 16.08.2021& 29.03.2017 passed by CIT (A)- 31 (annexure -3) & order dated 27.03.2014 passed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (annexure-4), impugned herein in the interest of justice. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 12:50:30

d. Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.” 4. In effect, the appellant is challenging the orders passed on 27.03.2014, 29.03.2017, 16.08.2021 and 23.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT appeals and ITAT. The reasons given seeking condonation of delay can be seen only from the paragraph 2 of the application which we reproduce as under:- “ 2. That the appellant could not filed the present appeal in time due to the misplace of the file concerned. That due to reshuffle of office the concerned file could not found and that led appellant could not contact his counsel due to the said difficulty and later she contacted his counsel and got removed the above said observations, however, there occurred an inadvertent delay 766 days in refiling of present appeal and the above said delay in refiling is neither wilful nor deliberate nor intentional but due to the bonafide reason mentioned above. That there is a delay of 766 days in refiling of the present appeal which is neither malafide nor intentional but due the aforesaid reasons. ”

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 22, 2025/So This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 12:50:30