Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises from an order dismissing their appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation. The original addition by the AO was on account of credit card payments made in cash. The assessee claimed the credit card did not belong to them and that notices were not received due to resignation from their employer.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bonafide reasons, including a change in employment and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays, citing Supreme Court judgments.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned based on bonafide reasons, and whether the AO's addition on account of credit card payments was justified.
Sections Cited
143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2017-18) Vikas Kumar Dogra, Flat No.B-702, Alaknanda Apartment, Gurgaon, Haryana 122011 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AMYPD-3220-D बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward -4(5), Vanijya Nikunj, Shankar Chowk Road, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurgaon, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Haryana 122016 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri R. K Gaur, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT (A)’) dated 24.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Shri R. K Gaur, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the solitary addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the case of the assessee is on account of credit card payment of Rs.5,36,986/- in cash during the period relevant to AY 2017-18. The ld. Counsel submits that the AO had selected the case of assessee for limited scrutiny to examine the credit card payment in cash in respect of Citi Bank credit card no.4386280020862080. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.09.2019 was served on the assessee on his official email account. The assessee was working with M/s. Ericson Global India P. Ltd. Shortly thereafter, the assessee resigned from the company and left the company on 03.12.2019. After resignation, the assessee had no access to his official email id on which notice was received. The alleged subsequent notices i.e. notices dated 05.12.2019 and 13.12.2019 were never received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 when the same was served on the assessee by post on 02.01.2020. The AO made addition of Rs.5,36,986/- i.e. the amount allegedly deposited by the assessee in cash towards Citi Bank credit card payment. The ld. Counsel submitted that the credit card account in respect of which cash deposits are attributed to the assessee does not belong to the assessee. The ld. Counsel placed on record a copy of email from Citi Bank wherein the credit card nos. held by the assessee currently and in the past are mentioned. The credit card no.4386280020862080 is not reflected in the list of credit cards held by the assessee at any point of time. The ld. Counsel submits that the addition has wrongly been made in hands of the assessee.
2.1. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation, without appreciating the bonafide reasons causing delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Initially, after receipt of assessment order the assessee was perusing wrong remedy of writing grievance letter to the AO, thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the assesee could not file appeal before the CIT(A) in time.
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department strongly supported the impugned order, and, prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of more than one year. The CIT(A) did not find any merit in explanation furnished by the assessee for delay in filing of appeal.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The present appeal by the assessee is against order of the CIT(A) whereby delay in filing of appeal was not condone. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal citing reasons causing delay.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.
5.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.
Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of AO for denovo examination. The AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law before passing the assessment order denovo.
The AO shall issue notice to the assessee on the email/postal address given in Form No. 36. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 15th day of December, 2025.