M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD. ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(1)(3), DDN, DEHRADUN

The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”). Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by following days:-

The assessee had filed the petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit wherein it is stated that the assessee is seeking legal advice against the order of Ld.CIT(A) and during this process, the assessee has appointed Shri Saheb Anand, AR to prepare the appeals and filed the same. However, it is stated by Ld.AR, Shri Saheb Anand that he had fallen ill and therefore, could not attend to the office leading to the delay in filing the present appeals. It is thus prayed that delay in filing the appeals may please be condoned.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr DR for the Revenue objected to the condondation of delay.

Heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the application filed by the assessee, we find that there is sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 310 days [in captioned appeals] before the Tribunal. Thus, under these facts and circumstances of the case and also by respectfully following the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. reported in 118 ITR 507 (SC) wherein it is held that “it is a settled principle that mistake of counsel made in certain circumstances to be taken into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of Ld. Counsel by itself is a sufficient ground”. Thus, the delay in filing the captioned appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard on merits.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in case of the assessee itself in for AY 2013-14 vide order dated 19.03.2025, the appeal of the assessee was Page | 2 dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi Benches. He further, submits that the assessee has already filed form No.8 u/s 158A of the Act. He thus, submits that the appeals may be decided in terms of the very same order.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supports the orders of the lower authorities.

Heard contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the identical issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in in para 9 of the order wherein it is observed by the Bench as under:- 9. “We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As submitted by the ld. AR on the same facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case had denied the claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act. Further, as submitted by the ld. AR against the above order of the Tribunal for AY 2010-11, the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court vide ITA No.15 of 2019, wherein, following substantial question of law has been admitted by an order dated 19.10.2020. "Shri Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent. Misc. applications (IA Nos. 9207/19 and 9954/19) with counter and rejoinder affidavits are taken on record. Urgency application (IA No. 10128 of 2020) stands disposed off. Heard learned counsels. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:-

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.07.2025.