ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order with a delay of 286 days, citing spinal treatment and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, refusing to condone the delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT took judicial notice of the Supreme Court's orders regarding the extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 and found the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient. It condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the 286-day delay in filing the first appeal, considering the assessee's medical condition and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 249(2), Section 249(3), Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 586/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura PAN : AXJPS7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.02.2026 ORDER
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.10.25 passed in appeal No NFAC/2011-12/10003090 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing first appeal.
At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 17.10.20 against the assessment order dated 05.12.19 passed u/s. 144 read with section of the Act, by a delay of about 286 days. Reasons for
ITA No.586/Agr/2025
delay shown before ld CIT(A) were that the assessee was under spinal treatment after his diagnosis on 05.11.19. Pandemic situation due to corona virus led to the lockdown and hence delay in filing appeal. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the period. Ld CIT however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine.
We take judicial notice of the fact that the duration of delay caused in filing appeal before the first appellate authority overlaps the period of spread of global pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken case of by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated 10.01.2022, directed that its order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent order dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand 2 | P a g e
ITA No.586/Agr/2025
excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings after exclusion of the aforesaid duration. Learned CIT(A) has still not condoned the delay of 286 days as stated in the impugned order.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice can not to be followed. The unrebutted cause shown in affidavit filed on behalf of the above referred-appellant’s employee appears to us to be sufficient. We hold that the delay has wrongly been refused to be condoned by learned CIT(A). We, accordingly condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.25 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in
3 | P a g e
ITA No.586/Agr/2025
accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.
Order pronounced in the open court on - 18.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (Sunil Kumar Singh) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 27.02.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
4 | P a g e
