Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were directed against orders of the CIT(A) pertaining to assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18. The CIT(A) refused to condone a delay of 23 days in filing the assessee's lower appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was not sustainable in law. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The sustainability of the CIT(A)'s order in light of the delay.
Sections Cited
153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR
ORDER PER BENCH : These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-25, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2012- 13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 respectively. Since all the four appeals are related to same assessee, hence, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by passing this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2012-13), as a lead case.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records, especially the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
At the threshold, we note that learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the corresponding delay of 23 days in institution of the assessee’s lower appeal filed on 27.04.2024 against the order u/s. 153C of the Act dated 22.04.2025. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee had filed his condonation petition explaining all the reasons of the said delay on account of circumstances beyond her control.
All these factual facts have gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We therefore rely upon the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that such a delay ought to have been condoned going by the condonation averments so as to pave way for the adjudication of the corresponding issues on merits, to conclude that the CIT(A)’s findings refusing to condone the impugned delay in assessee’s filing of the lower appeal are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we condone the delay in dispute and Ld. CIT(A)’s impugned order is accordingly reversed. Therefore, the assessee’s appeal is restored back to the CIT(A) for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal relevant to assessment year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. 5. Our aforesaid decision for assessment year 2012-13 will apply mutatis mutandis to other remaining appeals relevant to assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 also.