MOHIT SATSANGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWALMohit Satsangi, 24th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Delhi-110017. PAN-AWMPS2265D
[
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.
Addl./ Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [CIT(A) in short], dated 22.01.2025 in Appeal No. Addl./JCIT-(A) Mumbai-
10036/2022-23 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal of the assessee is filed delayed by 143 days before the Ld. CIT(A), for which delay condonation petition was also filed, wherein it was stated by the Mohit Satsangi vs. ACIT assessee that he had filed rectification applications on two occasions before the AO for rectification of the order, however, both these applications were dismissed, therefore, the assessee had with no other alternate but to file the appeal before CIT(A) and in this process the same was got delayed by 143 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find any force in the reasons given by the assessee and not admitted the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay.
Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay is bonafide and there was reasonable cause as assessee was exploring the alternate remedy and acted in terms of legal advice therefore, the appeal was got delayed. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: -Subhash Malik vs. CIT 325 ITR 243 (ALL) -SPS Educational and Welfare Society Versus DCIT-DPC [2022 (9) TMI 87- ITAT DELHI) -Dilip Kantilal Kapadia Versus ITO-17 (1) (4), Mumbai [2021 (7) TMI 62-ITAT Mumbai) -R.A.K. Ceramics, UAE v. DCIT [2019 (4) TMI 667 – ITAT Hyderabada]’ -Indira Educational and Charitable Trust, (5) TMI 594-ITAT Chennai]’ -More Mover Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2020 (4) TMI 434-ITAT Amhedabad]. -Autoliv India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020 (2) TMI 211-ITAT Basngalore], - Smt. Shilpa Gopala Reddy v. ITO [2020 (4) TMI 646 ITAT Bangalore].
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and stated that there was no Bonafide reason and only when the assessee had failed in rectification proceedings, he proceeded to filed the appeal thus the delay should not be condoned.
After considering the facts and hearing both the parties, we find that in the instant case appeal of the assessee was dismissed as not Mohit Satsangi vs. ACIT admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) for want of sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. As observed above, the assessee had duly explained the circumstance and cause due to which appeal was filed delayed before ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion, the explanation given by the assessee towards delay is bonafide and sufficient cause, therefore, the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Since, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, the entire appeal is remand to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to file all the submissions and necessary evidences in support of the claim. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In view of the above directions, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.08.2025. (SUDHIR KUMAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 28.08.2025
PK/Ps