Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1817 days. The delay was attributed to various reasons including the company's registered office closure, severe illness in the family of the directors, and the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. The assessee sought condonation of this delay.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the genuine hardship faced, and in light of pronouncements by the Supreme Court on liberal approach for condonation of delay, condoned the delay. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee. The Tribunal further set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether sufficient cause existed for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities should be set aside.
Sections Cited
250, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 08.12.2025 08.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case there is a delay of 1817 days in the filing of the present appeal. The said delay has been requested to be condoned as under: - “1. That this is application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Hon'ble Tribunal) against the order dated 24.02.2020 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi ("Ld. CIT(A)")
2. That the appeal against the CIT(A) order was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 21.04.2025, resulting in a delay of 1817 days in filing the same.
3. That the applicant is a private limited company with two directors, Ms. Zaibun Nisa and Ms. Zeba Urfi. There has been no business activity in the company since the year 2014 and hence registered office of the applicant was closed temporary.
4. That the case of the applicant was reopened under section 147 for the AY 2011-12, the re-assessment order passed by the AO on 07.12.2018. In response to the same, the applicant filed the appeal before CIT(A) and the chartered accountant was also appointed to represent the matter. The assessee forwarded all the notices received from the Department to the CA. However, he sought adjournments on various dates and applicant was unaware about the final hearing dates.
Therefore, the order dated 24.02.2020 was passed by the CIT(A), however, the same was not received by the assessee due to the closure of its office.
Subsequently, the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown was imposed in March 2020, which further aggravated the difficulties faced by the applicant.
That your honour in 2020, during lockdown, Mr. Md. Irfan, husband of Ms. Zaibun Nisa and father of Ms. Zeba Urfi, was diagnosed with Cirrhosis (liver damage), and subsequently. Ms. Zaibun Nisa, mother of Ms. Zeba Urfi was diagnosed with Dementia (memory loss).
That Ms. Zaha Urfi, being the sole caregiver for both parents, was wholly engaged in their medical treatments, therapy coordination, and frequent hospital visits. These responsibilities occupied her time and attention completely, making it impossible to address the pending tax matters.
That the registered office of the applicant company remained temporarily closed, and due to this closures, the assessee did not receive any further, notices or communication from the Income Tax Department.
That now, with the improvement in her parents’ health, Ms. Zeba Urfi has resumed normal activities and recently accessed the Income Tax Portal, where she noticed the Ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 24.02.2020.
11.That upon discovering the order. She immediately forwarded the same to newly appointed tax counsel, who advised that an appeal should be filed along with an application for condonation of delay.
That pursuant to the counsel's advice, the appeal was filed on 21.04.2025, resulting in a delay of 1817 days
That the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, and is neither deliberate nor intentional, but rather due to genuine hardship and medical exigencies.
That the applicant also submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 dated January 10, 2022, directed that due to lockdown imposed in COVID-19 Pandemic, the period from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation under general or special laws for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Furthermore, in cases where the limitation would have expired between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, a fresh limitation of 90 days from 01.03.2022 was granted.
That in view of the foregoing facts and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the matter be heard on merits, in the interest of justice. 1.1The assessee has also filed an affidavit requesting again for condonation of the delay and admitting the appeal for the adjudication.
1.2Considering the extent of delay the Ld. AR was asked to justify the same since even if one were to exclude the COVID period of roughly 2 years then also a sizable delay would need to be explained by the assessee. The Ld. AR pointed out that there was severe illness in the assessee’s family due to which his business and his other professional affairs suffered considerably. The Ld. AR pointed out to the bench the many medical documents annexed with the affidavit requesting condonation of delay. It was a submission that because of such circumstances the assessee could not appear before either of the authorities below and therefore even before them he has suffered with adverse ex parte orders.
1.3 The Ld. DR initially opposed the condonation of delay in the matter but subsequently left it to this Bench for any appropriate consideration in the matter.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the facts of the case, including the affidavit, along with annexures, filed for perusal and consideration. We have also perused the contents of the paper book filed by the Ld. AR. It is a settled position of law that while the duration of delay could be a material factor in deciding whether the same deserves to be condoned or not 4 but the more important factor would be the reasons for the said delay. In this case, we are considerably persuaded by the arguments of the Ld. AR, the written submissions presented before us to come to the conclusion that the delay deserves to be condoned in this case. At this stage, we need to remind ourselves of the critical pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject of “sufficient cause”.
In Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, the Supreme Court has observed that the message with regard to a liberal approach does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. As per the Hon’ble Court, the following guidelines should be borne in mind while interpreting the concept of “sufficient cause”: -
[1] The Litigant does not stand benefited by lodging an appeal late; [2] Refusal to condone may result in meritorious matters being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated; [3] In the matter of explanation of a very day's delay, pedantic approach should be avoided. Rational common sense, pragmatic approach should be invariably adopted; [4] Substantial justice is to be preferred against technical flaws; 5
[5] There is no presumption that delay is always deliberate; and [6] Injustice is to be removed. In another decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay, the important and strategic aspects that have to be kept in view in deciding the cases relating to condonation of delay have been succinctly summed up in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy (2013) 5 CTC 547; the relevant portions are extracted below for convenient reference: -
"15. From the aforesaid authorities, the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
[i] There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
[ii] The term 'sufficient cause' should be understood in its proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that this term is basically elastic and is to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation.
[iii] Substantial justice, being paramount and pivotal, the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
[iv] No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
[v] Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
[vi] It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
[vii] The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the concept of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
[viii] There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted, whereas, to the latter, it may not be attracted. That apart, 3/ 5 the first one warrants strict approach, whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
[ix] The conduct, behaviour and attitude of party relating to its inaction or negligence area relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go- by in the name of liberal approach.
[x] If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
[xi] It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
[xii] The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion, which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
[xii] The State or a public body or an entity, representing a collective cause, should be given some acceptable latitude.”
Also, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal reported in 174 taxmann.com 21 (SC), order dated 31.01.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement has mandated a justice-oriented approach and has advocated that a liberal view should be taken while dealing with matters of condonation of delay.
2.1 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and the authorities discussed above, we deem it fit to condone the said delay and admit this case for adjudication.
2.2 However, since considerable government resources have been expended in the passage of this matter from the Ld.
AO’s desk to the ITAT, it is deemed fit to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/-, payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee. This amount will need to be deposited by 31.01.2026.
As has been mentioned by the Ld. AR and as is visible from the records before us, the orders of authorities below have been passed in an ex parte manner and hence we deem it fit, in the interests of substantial justice, to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2025