ABHISHEK KUMAR,DELHI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 4236/DEL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Abhishek Kumar against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the assessee's ill health, which the CIT(A) initially did not accept due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal, however, found that the delay was not due to any mala fide intent and was a result of the assessee's health issues. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of not shutting the doors against a litigant without considering the merits of the case, especially when the delay is not intentional.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474660 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4236/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) Abhishek Kumar, A1A A1 Block, Adarsh Nagar, Sarwan Singh Road, Delhi-110033. PAN-AZIPK0551H Vs. CIT, NFAC Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 06.-9.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2015- 16/10265911 for AY 2016-17. 2. An adjournment application was filed by the AR of the assessee stating that he is going out of station. After considering the facts of the case we find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 31 days before the CIT(A). Since the reason for delay is spelt out in the appellate order itself thus we deem it fit to decide the issue of condonation of delay which 2 ITA No.4236 /Del/2024 Abhishek Kumar vs. CIT does not require any detailed deliberation from the part of the assessee. Accordingly, the adjournment application filed is rejected and appeal is heard. 3. First we take up the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) by 31 days. 4. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. From the perusal of the order of CIT(A) we find that delay was explained by the assessee by stating that he was not well which explanation was not accepted by ld. CIT(A) for want of some evidence and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 5. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the contention of the assessee was that though the order was received but appeal was not file due to ill health for which no evidence was filed the plea of the assesse cannot be accepted. This is not the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Hence, he opposed the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act wherein additions were made u/s 68 of the Act. In the first appeal there is a delay of only 31 days which is due to the fact that assessee was not in good health and the assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in 3 ITA No.4236 /Del/2024 Abhishek Kumar vs. CIT our considered opinion in filing the appeal is a result of bad health of assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. At the most for the inaction or a little negligence, the assessee can be burdened with the cost. But his right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. We condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the ld. CIT(A), who will decide the appeal of the assessee on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18/02/2025 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4 ITA No.4236 /Del/2024 Abhishek Kumar vs. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "