Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee had filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a delay of 111 days, citing bonafide reasons including the Covid-19 pandemic.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds, emphasizing a liberal approach for condonation of delay as per Apex Court judgments. Considering the bonafide reasons and the assessment order being passed ex-parte, the matter was restored for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without a liberal consideration of the delay condonation application. Whether the assessee's reasons for delay in filing the appeal were bonafide.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 282(1)(a), 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
(A.Y.2012-13) Ms. Archana Singh, 2302 B Wing, Avalon, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: BAKPS-7655-E बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-71(5), ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : Shri M R Sahu, Chartered Accountant �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 17/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 24.02.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation.
Shri M R Sahu, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a homemaker. The assessee had sold her residential property, during the period relevant to impugned assessment year for a consideration of (A.Y.2012-13) Rs.60,00,000/-. The said property was acquired by the assessee in November 2009 for a total cost of Rs.57,98,820/-. No return of income was filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, as the income was below taxable limit. The Assessing Officer (AO) assumed that the sale consideration received by the assessee on sale of property was her income and initiated proceedings u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The alleged notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was never served on the assessee, hence, the assessment was completed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessee came to know about the assessment order and the demand, when the assessee was filing her return of income on 4th February 2021. Immediately, thereafter, the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 27.11.2019 before the CIT(A) on 28.02.2021. Along with appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. After excluded the period of Covid there was delay of 111 days. The CIT(A) without appreciating the reasons given for delay in filing of appeal, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The ld. AR submits that the assessee had bonafide reasons for delay in filing of appeal, which were duly explained in the affidavit. He further submitted that if give an opportunity, the assessee would be able to substantiate her contention that there was no taxable income during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. He prayed for restoring the matter back to the AO or the CIT(A).
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, representing the Department submitted that the assessee neither participated in assessment proceedings nor the appeal was filed by the assessee in time, this clearly shows that the assessee is not vigilant enough to defend her case.
(A.Y.2012-13) 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. Undisputedly, there was a delay of 111 in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) after excluding Covid-19 pandemic period. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A), which appears to be bonafide. It is a well accepted legal jurisprudence that acceptance of reasons explaining the delay should be the rule and refusal, an exception.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others the Hon’ble Apex Court held, that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.
Thus, in light of aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the reasons explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal before the (A.Y.2012-13) CIT(A), we are of considered view that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. Considering the fact that the assessment order was also passed invoking provisions of u/s.144 of the Act, we deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The AO shall serve notice to the assessee on the email id provided in Form No. 36, as well as through post in accordance with provisions of section 282(1)(a) of the Act.
The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 17th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िद�ी/Delhi, �दनांक/Dated 17/11/2025 NV/- �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent.