SHRI RITESH SHOKEEN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 34 months. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the assessment order being taken away by their previous counsel and received late. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
- Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT88 citing248 ITR 681 · 2001 · HC
- 1. Auto Centre v. State of Uttar Pradesh12 citing278 ITR 291 · 2005 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi vide order dated 27.8.2014 for the A.Y. 2008-09. The ld. counsel for the assessee has pressed ground no. 1 which is reproduced herein above:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal which was explained with plausible reasons and incontrovertible evidence.”
The brief facts of the case as pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. K. Sampath, Advocate that the assessee did not get order of the assessment which was taken away by the earlier counsel. As a matter of fact the order was received by the assessee on 23.10.2013 as a certified copy and appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 11.11.2013. Whereas as per the ld. CIT(A) there is a delay of 34 months after passing the order section 143(3) of the Act and assessee was given many opportunities of hearing but none responded. The ld. CIT(A) opined that the assessee had no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and accordingly he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of various courts of law available at page 167 ITR 471(Supreme Court), 278 ITR 291 (Allahabad) 248 ITR 681 by perusing the circumstances and facts of the case, I find the sufficient cause in fling the appeal which as per the ld. CIT(A) is 34 months and as per the assessee the appeal has been filed in time. The cause has been substantiated by the ld. counsel for the assessee and I am convinced with the same and therefore the ld. CIT (A) is directed to condone the delay and further directed to hear the appeal on Page 2 of 4 merit and decide the case on merit after affording adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee. accordingly grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on 09.03.2017. Sd/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09.03.2017 Narender Copy forwarded to: 1) Appellant 2) Respondent 3) CIT 4) CIT (Appeals) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Date Draft dictated on 8.03.2017 Draft placed before author 9.03.2017 Draft proposed & placed before the second member Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.
Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 9.3.2017 Kept for pronouncement on File sent to the Bench Clerk 9.3.2017 Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S. Rao Computers Consultants Pvt. Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), BengaluruBangalore11 Apr 2018Allowed
Also relies on Auto Centre v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable, considering the ongoing dispute regarding the head of income for rental income. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay.
- Welcome Traders, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…Bangalore23 Sept 2024Allowed
Also relies on Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and was due to a misunderstanding by the assessee and their tax consultant, compounded by a search proceeding. Relying on various High Court and S...
- Naveen Kishor Mohnot, Mumbai vs ITO-25(3)(5), MumbaiMumbai5 Apr 2023Allowed
Also relies on Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition under Secti...
- Ajay Parasmal Kothari, Mumbai vs ITO-30(1)(1), MumbaiMumbai3 Apr 2023Allowed
Also relies on Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the compensation received for alternate accommodation during redevelopment is a capital receipt and not t...
- Music Broadcast Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Mumbai21 May 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 510 days, noting the assessee's bonafide belief that the rectification application would resolve the issue. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the short TDS credit claim ...
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026