Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period by 201 days. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was received by the assessee on 26.09.2024, and the appeal was due on or before 30.11.2024, but was filed on 09.07.2025. The assessee's counsel could not provide a reasonable cause for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the assessee's statement and the fact that the order was communicated on 26.09.2024. As the assessee's counsel could not establish a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable when filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without a reasonable cause for the delay.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 26/09/2024. Assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward 35(8), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 23.12.2019.
Rita Luthra, Delhi 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 201 days as per Form No. 36, the order of Ld. CIT(A) was received by assessee on 26.09.2024 and appeal is to be filed on or before 30.11.2024. But appeal was factually filed on 09.07.2025, it means there is delay of 201 days as noted by Registry. When this was pointed out to Ld. Counsel for the assessee, he only requested that delay be condoned but when pointed out there is application for condonation of delay what reasonable cause is for the delay. Ld. Counsel could not explain the delay and stated that the appeal order was not received by assessee and assessee was under genuine impression that her consultant was handling the matter appropriately in the absence of any communication, the assessee had no reason to suspect that the appeal was not being filed timely. Ld. Counsel further explained that the assessee became aware of the pending issue only in July 2025, when she engaged a new Tax Professional for other financial matters and during the discussion, the status of the CIT(A)’s order. When, it was pointed out to the Ld. Counsel that what was the reasonable and sufficient cause for delay, he could not explain except that assessee did not receive the order.
Rita Luthra, Delhi We noticed that there is contradiction in the statement of assessee and the fact that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee on 26.09.2024 which is clearly noted by the assessee in Form No. 36 and this was not contradicted by assessee. The assessee counsel before us, could not establish that there is any reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as not maintainable on this account.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th November, 2025.