SH. NITIN SINGHAL,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, U.S.NAGAR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 777 days. The assessee cited severe COVID-19 waves, personal illness, and an accident as reasons for the delay. The assessee's representative did not appear for the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 777 days, citing the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others, emphasizing substantial justice. However, since the assessee and their representative did not appear and make submissions, and the CIT(A)'s order was considered to have been passed after due consideration of the grounds of appeal, no interference was warranted.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and whether to dismiss the appeal on merits given the absence of the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 263, 10(38), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
1 ITA No. 08/DDN/2024 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “DEHRADUN”/ NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 08/DDN/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO Matta Garg & Co. Chartered U.S. Nagar Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Ward-2(2)(4), Bajpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand UdhamSingh Nagar, PAN: AQWPS4877P Uttarakhand, 262401
Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/08/2025
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi (‘NFAC ’ for short] dated 12/04/2023 for the Assessment Year
2015-16.
None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in
the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld.
Department's Representative and perusing the material available on
record.
2 ITA No. 08/DDN/2024 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO
There is a delay of 777 days in filing the present Appeal. The
Assessee filed an affidavit for condoning the delay which reads as under:-
“5. Due to severe wave of corona prevalent in Bajpur and other parts of the country the physical movement was totally affected. I was, therefore, prevented from contacting my CA and could not seek legal advise. Even the CAs were not available due to pandemic.
After the first wave, the entire focus was on some how to reopen and restart the businesses which was closed for a long time. The substantial losses due to closure of business during pandemic had already been suffered. There were many financial problems in addition to the health issues involved. The main focus was on to restart the business so that continuing losses could be stopped.
The matter of order passed u/s 263 somehow escaped attention due to other burning issues related to corona pandemic, restart of the business after pandemic and financial problems.
I was not able to settle properly that again the second wave of corona started in February, 2021. I was myself infected with corona virus and survived fatality after concerted efforts and long medical treatment by the doctors. The post corona effect lasted for a long time due to acute weakness and slow recovery and related health issues.
By the time I recovered from the corona virus the entire attention was given against restart the business which was adversely affected during my prolonged illness.
The serious illness and adverse affect on the business led to financial construction which was the first priority to overcome at that point of time.
Later in the month of January, 2023 I met with an accident and my right knee joint was fractured.
It struck me on getting reminder for payment of tax demand and I seriously took up the tax matter and sought legal advice. Initially there were different opinions of the experts whether to prefer appeals or not.
3 ITA No. 08/DDN/2024 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO
My Chartered Accountant who was attending the tax proceedings was not in favour of going into appeal. But contacting more experienced legal luminaries inclined me to prefer appeal.
Now, finally I have decided to go for appeal against the order passed by learned Principal CIT, Haldwanias also the order of assessment passed subsequently by learned ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Bazpur on 29.09.2021.”
The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no
sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for
dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.
We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused
the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present
Appeal. The Assessee contended that due to severe wave of corona
prevalent in Bajpur and other parts of the country the physical
movement was totally affected and the Assessee was prevented from
contacting my CA and could not seek legal advise and even the CAs were
not available due to pandemic. Further contended that due to the
pandemic the Assessee has faced financial problem in addition to the
health issues. The Assessee has produced medical records to
substantiate his claim. Due to the said reason the order impugned
escaped attention. The Assessee further submitted that even during the
second wave Assessee was infected with corona virus and survived
4 ITA No. 08/DDN/2024 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO
fatality after concerted efforts and long medical treatment by the doctors
and post corona effect lasted for a long time due to acute weakness and
slow recovery and related health issues. Further submitted that in the
month of January, 2023 Assessee met with an accident and his right
knee joint was fractured. Due to the above cause, the Assessee could not
file the Appeal on time.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay
in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a
liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in
Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471
(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when
supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of
substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we
condone the delay of 777 days in filing the present Appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that, return of income was filed declaring
total income of Rs. 5,37,830/-. An addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- was made
in original order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short)
passed on 28.12.2017. On noticing addition of Rs. 40 lacs in the capital
account of M/s. Rajlaxmi Foods through sale of shares of HPC
Biosciences Ltd and Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd, LTCG on
5 ITA No. 08/DDN/2024 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO
which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38), the Ld PCIT, Haldwani set aside
the AO's order by way of order u/s 263 and directed AO to make fresh
assessment. The assessment u/s 143(3) rws 263 Income Tax Act 1961
was completed on 29.09.2021 and total income was assessed at Rs.
52,68,650/-. Addition of Rs 43,74,583/- was made on account of bogus
long term capital gain on sale of shares, of Rs. 2,25,000/- as
unexplained expenses and Rs. 1,31,237/- under section 69C Aggrieved
by the assessment order vide order dated 29/09/2021.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/09/2021, the
Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide
order dated 12/04/2023, has dismissed Appeal.
The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that all
the grounds of appeal of the Assessee have been decided on merits and
the Assessee neither appeared nor produced any document to contradict
the findings of the Lower Authorities, thus sought for dismissal of the
Appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Department's Representative and perused
the material available on record. As could be seen from the order of the
Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) has decided all the grounds of Appeal in a
6 ITA No. 08/DDN/2024 Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. ITO
threadbare manner, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the
submissions made by the Assessee qua the additions under challenge.
Though the present Appeal has been filed by the Assessee through
authorized representative, neither the Assessee nor the Assessee’s
Representative have appeared and made any submission. Considering
the above facts and circumstances, we find no cogent reason to interfere
with the findings and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the
appeal of the Assessee is hereby dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08TH August, 2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 08 .08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S*
