ANUJ KUMAR JAIN,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM
ITA No.4528/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4528/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2019-20
ANUJ KUMAR JAIN,
355, Espace Nirvana County,
Sector-50, South City-2,
Gurugram – 122018. PAN No.ACBPJ2401K
बनाम
Vs.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
Circle 1(1), Income Tax Office,
HSIIDC Complex, Shankar Chowk Road,
Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Sector-19,
Gurugram, Haryana – 122016. अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by Shri Amit Srivastava, Advocate
Revenue by Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
18.12.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 18.12.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal is delayed by 144 days, for which an application has been filed as under:
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS:
Re: Application for condonation of delay
1. That the accompanying appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the CIT(A) in the case of the Appellant for AY 2019-20. 2. That in the said impugned order Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the Appellant solely on the ground of delay in filing the without appreciating the fact that the said period of limitation was falling within period of COVID-19 pandemic out break.
The facts of the case are that the AO had not made any assessment and had made additions under intimation section 143(1) of the 2
Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the additions made are not of the nature of ‘arithmetical error’ or an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return.
That the Appellant was advised that since the additions are made without appreciating that the additions made are not of the nature of ‘arithmetical error’ or an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, the remedy lies in filing rectification before AO in terms of the notification issued by the CBDT. Later the said order was also challenged by the Appellant before CIT(A). The Appellant filed detailed submission before the CIT(A) on merits.
However, strangely Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ignoring the said submissions of the Appellant solely on the ground of delay.
At this stage the Appellant was advised that he should wait for the rectification application pending before the AO. The same stands pending till date.
Since no action was taken by the AO on the same. The Appellant consulted advocate seeking remedy. It was then advised to the Appellant to file the present appeal challenging the impugned order before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
Therefore the delay in filing the present appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and is caused for the reasons mentioned above.
The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the present appeal.”
1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 24.12.2024, passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Guwahati, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). In this case, the assessee is seen to have challenged the action of Ld. AO-CPC in disallowing a claim u/s 54 of the 3
Act. However, the aggrieved assessee filed the first appeal with a delay of 498 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal inlimne.
2.1
The assessee has challenged this action of Ld. CIT(A) through several grounds, which assail the dismissal of appeal on the ground that no sufficient cause was advanced before the Ld. CIT(A) for condoning the delay before him.
3. Before us, the Ld. AR filed an affidavit through which the reasons for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) has been attributed to the COVID
Pandemic and also the fact that a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed in the hope of obtaining the deduction u/s 54 of the Act, which was still pending. The Ld. AR read out from the said affidavit filed before us and the same deserves to be extracted for reference:
“I, Anuj Kumar Jain, son of Shri Sham Lai Jain, aged about 58
years, resident of 355, Espace Nirvana County, Sector 50, South
City -2, Gurugram - 122018, presently at Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under-
1. That I am the Appellant in the captioned appeal and fully conversant with the facts of the case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the Appellants herein is challenging the order dated
24.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT - A wherein appeal of the Appellant was dismissed solely on the ground of delay in filing the Appeals before CIT - A. It is respectfully submitted that the Ld. CIT
- A failed to appreciate that the period of limitation for filing appeal was falling under COVED pandemic times.
3. That the return of income for the year under consideration was processed on 23 March f 2021 wherein the demand was raised against the Appellant, the Appellant was advised that the tax
4
demand has arisen due to mistake by the Assessing officer and the same should be rectified under section 154 of the Act and accordingly, filed online rectification application also on 17
December 2021. However, in response to the said rectification, the CPC re-processed the return of income and did not amend the original intimation.
4. During this time, the elder son of the Appellant was diagnosed with Cancer and passed away in the Month of September
2021. The Appellant was away to USA to support his elder son during this time.
5. Further, the Appellant had lost his job during the COVID pandemic in April 2020. The loss of job followed by the untimely demise of the elder son of the Appellant caused) significant trauma to Appellant. The Appellant was not in the position to make appropriate filings in time before the Commissioner of Income-Tax
(Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’].
6. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 02.09.2022, however, the same was dismissed by the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing delay in filing of the appeal without deliberating on the merits of the case. It is relevant to point out here that; the Appellant met the juri ictional assessing officer (‘AO’) who after discussing the case with the Appellant assured that the relief will be provided by way of passing of rectification order.
7. Subsequently, the juri ictional AO refused to pass the rectification order and advised to approach the Hon’ble bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant sought legal advice and based on that has filed present appeal before this Hon’ble
Tribunal so that justice can be served.
8. In view of the above genuine grounds that form sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, we pray to your honor to please condone the delay.”
Thereafter, the Ld. AR prayed for a chance to prove the bona fides belief before the Ld. CIT(A).
3.1
The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
4. We have considered the facts before us, the documents filed by the assessee and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. We are considerably persuaded by the averments contained in the affidavit before us
5
regarding the reasons for delay. It is a settled position that adjudicating forums are primarily intended to render justice and it is only in rare cases that appeals need to be dismissed on account of delay in filing. In this case, we appreciate that the delay is considerable but the assessee has been able to justify the same before us and hence, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order, condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
5. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025 (MAHAVIR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 29.12.2025
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.