KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2017-18 was completed ex-parte u/s 144, making an addition of Rs 1,02,14,380/- u/s 69A for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The first appeal to CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred (508 days delay), and the subsequent appeal to ITAT was also delayed by 112 days. The assessee sought condonation of both delays citing pregnancy, counsel's negligence, misrepresentation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held
The Tribunal condoned both the 112-day delay in filing the appeal before it and the 508-day delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), finding "sufficient cause" and emphasizing substantial justice. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits, with the direction to provide a fair hearing and for the assessee to participate vigilantly.
Key Issues
Whether the delays in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT should be condoned, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits regarding the addition made u/s 69A.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 249(3), Section 253, Section 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 26.08.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 25.10.2019 passed by learned ITO, Betul [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 112
days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the
assessee is a lady who was having pregnancy at the relevant time and hence
there occurred delay in filing present appeal. The assessee has also placed
before bench the copies of medical reports. In view of this situation, Ld. DR
for revenue does not have any objection against condonation of delay. We
find that the assessee has explained “sufficient cause” for occurrence of
delay, accordingly the delay is condoned taking into account the facts of
case and the assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land
Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387
having settled the law long back that all such “technical aspects” must make
a way for the cause of “substantial justice”.
Ld. AR for assessee next pointed out that there was also a delay of 508
days in filing first-appeal before CIT(A) and although the assessee submitted
before CIT(A) that she was misguided by her counsel and hence there was a
delay in filing appeal but the CIT(A) did not consider assessee’s submission
judiciously and dismissed assessee’s appeal on the ground of time-barred.
Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed following “Interlocutory
Application” before this bench seeking condonation of delay in filing first-
appeal duly supported by an affidavit:
Page 2 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Page 3 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Page 4 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Page 5 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Page 6 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Page 7 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Page 8 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self-
explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed. Further,
the Ld. AR has also filed the prints-out of mobile/whatsapp chat which took
place between assessee and earlier counsel to demonstrate that the assessee
paid fee to counsel and made enquiries of filing of appeal to CIT(A) from time
to time. The whatsapp chat filed by assessee prima facie shows that the
assessee exercised due diligence for filing of first appeal to CIT(A). The Ld.
DR for revenue left the matter to the wisdom of bench. We have considered
the averments made by assessee in the application and also the whatsapp
chat filed by assessee to show the negligence on the part of counsel and in
absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to
have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing first-appeal to CIT(A) in time.
Page 9 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Furthermore, the assessment-order was passed by AO on 25.10.2019 and
the assessee was having 30 days’s statutory time expiring on 25.11.2019 for
filing appeal to CIT(A) as against which the assessee actually filed appeal on
15.04.2021 after a delay of 508 days. But, however, we find that out of total
period from 25.11.2019 to 15.04.2021, the substantial period of 15.03.2020
to 15.04.2021 was during Covid-19 pandemic and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also granted extension in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020
read with Misc. Applications for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under
all laws. Therefore, considering the entire conspectus of matter, the CIT(A)
ought to have judiciously considered the reasoning explained by assessee.
We find that section 249(3) empowers the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after
expiry of prescribed time, if there is a sufficient cause for not presenting
appeal within prescribed time. Similarly, the section 253(5) of the Act
empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if
there is a sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.
It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in landmark decision
in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353,
1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical
considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice
must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Therefore, taking
a judicious note of the submissions made by assessee to CIT(A) in the light
of provisions of section 249(3) r.w.s. 253(5) of the Act and the decision of
Page 10 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay occurred at the stage of filing
first-appeal before CIT(A).
On merit of case, Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has
made part-participation during assessment-proceeding leading the AO to
pass ex-parte order u/s 144 but the assessee has collected all evidences and
compiled all details for making an effective representation before AO,
therefore the present matter must be remanded to the file of AO. Ld. DR for
revenue submitted that he has no objection against remand but the bench
must give a strict direction to assessee for participation before AO.
Accordingly, considering the facts submitted in Interlocutory Application;
having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind
that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is
restored at the level of AO for an appropriate adjudication in accordance
with law, we condone the delay in first-appeal and also remand this matter
back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility
of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee
and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The
assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the
hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments
failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Page 11 of 12
Kalpana Narware ITA No. 202/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 16/01/2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 16/01/2026
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 12 of 12
