VIKASH ANAND,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD W3(1), RANCHI, RANCHI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 148 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the condonation petition, citing the delay. The assessee's father was suffering from severe ailments, leading the assessee to resign from his job and move to Ranchi, which caused the delay in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The delay was considered not inordinate and not intentional, and therefore, the delay of 148 days was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to sufficient cause and whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A),
NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10168950 dated 26/06/2025 for the
A.Y. 2017-18.
Shri Raj Kumar, ld. A.R. represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajib
Jain, ld. CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
The ld. AR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the
assessee on the ground of condonation of delay. There was delay of 148 days
in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the
appeal of the assessee without considering the condonation petition filed by
the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the delay was caused in filing appeal
before the ld. CIT(A) as because the assessee had resigned from the job.
ITA No. 282/Ran/2025 Vikas Anand vs ITO
The notices were being served in the office address of assessee which was at
Raigarh Branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank instead of his actual address which is
at Hinoo, Ranchi. The assessee is aware of banking laws but is not aware of
income tax laws. It was also stated in the condonation application that the
father of the assessee is suffering from severe ailments due to which he left
the job at Raigarh and was staying in Ranchi. The assessee only came to
know about the notices when a chartered accountant pointed out the legal
issues from assessee's portal. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has
dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the merit of the
appeal. The assessee stated that the delay in filing appeal is neither
intentional nor deliberate. The delay is not inordinate. The assessee has good
case on merit would suffer prejudice if delay is not condoned in its case and
the appeal is not adjudicated on merit. It was a prayer that the delay may be
condoned and the issues in the appeal restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for
adjudication on merits.
In reply, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing
Officer and the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the
present case clearly shows that the assessee was prevented by sufficient
cause in not filing the appeal within time before the ld. CIT(A). Considering
the fact that the delay is not inordinate and seems to be not intentional
Consequently, the delay of 148 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A)
ITA No. 282/Ran/2025 Vikas Anand vs ITO
stands condoned and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.
CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order announced in open court on 05/03/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi, Dated: 05 /03/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi
