SH. MAHADEV SHIKARI,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 221/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after imposing a symbolic fine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 782 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and latches. The assessee contended that the delay was due to being an illiterate senior citizen and communication gaps.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee, to allow for a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 08/07/2025Pronounced: 16/07/2025

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 11/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Facts in brief are that, an assessment order came to be passed 07/12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 89,24,440/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,06,440/-. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 782 days, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on delay in latches which has been called in question before us.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee along with the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal narrating that the Assessee is a an illiterate senior citizen and due to communication gap, the Appeal could not be filed on time before the Ld. CIT(A).

Thus, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condone the delay and decided the Appeal on its merit. Thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that there is an ordinate delay of 782 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay, the Appeal has been rightly dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on delay in latches, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal.

Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Assessee.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the Assessee that the delay in filing the Appeal caused due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it fit to condone the delay by imposing symbolic fine. Thus, the delay of 782 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned subject to the Assessee depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the account of Prime Minister Relief Fund. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the Assessee.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →