Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file her return for AY 2015-16. Information was received regarding the sale of immovable property for Rs. 1,22,51,580/-. Notice was issued under Section 148A(b) and an assessment order was passed adding the full amount as undisclosed short-term capital gain.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's delay of 228 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) was due to suffering from chronic anxiety and psychosis, and was supported by a medical certificate. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay in filing when there was sufficient cause, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
148A(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘H’ BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 10/01/2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23.03.2023.
Brief facts of the case are that,the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. An information was received under the NMC category for the relevant assessment year, 2015-16 in accordance with Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT, New Delhi. As per information, the assessee has Mala Kapoor Vs. ITO sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,22,51,580/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. Notice was issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act to the assessee and was duly served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to furnish the reply within the time limit. An assessment order came to be passed on 23/03/2023 by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,51,580/- on account of undisclosed Short Term Capital Gain. Aggrieved, by the Assessment order dated 23/03/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for delay in latches vide order dated 10/01/2025. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10/01/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 228 days, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in dismissing the First Appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches. Further submitted that the Assessee was suffering from chronic anxiety and psychosis and was mentally unfit for last two years and to substantiate the same produced certificate issued by medical practitioner before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of limitation. Thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal.
Mala Kapoor Vs. ITO 4. We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23/03/2023, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 228 days. As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that Assessee was suffering from chronic anxiety and psychosis and was mentally unfit for last two years and to substantiate the same produced certificate issued by medical practitioner before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.
It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 228 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits