ALLEGORGE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,C/O AKUL AGARWAL AND ASSOCIATES V. ITO/WARD-2(2), INCOME TAX OFFICE

ITA 2941/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising from an assessment order passed under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal was initially delayed by 640 days due to the assessee's unawareness of the appellate proceedings and misplacement of assessment records, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). Upon receiving a recovery notice in April 2025, the assessee filed the appeal with the ITAT on May 1, 2025. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of substantial justice, condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and directing a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841648 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Others, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh & Ors., CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar, Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors., State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Lala Mala Din v. A. Narayanan
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AKUL AGARWAL; THROUGH VC
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Bonafide mistake; Assessment record
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.- D2/20, Sector-10, DLF, Faridabad-121006. Vs ITO Ward-2(2), Room No. 373, C.R. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. PAN- AAGCA3735R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Akul Agarwal, FCA (through VC) Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] order dated 19.05.2023 arising out of the assessment order dated 15.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2 ‘the Act’) passed by the ITO, Ward-2(2), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 640 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee filed an application dated 02.02.2026 along with an affidavit of Shri Sharad Singhal, Director dated 02.02.26 explaining the reasons for the delay and requested to condone the delay. The condonation affidavit of the Director, requesting for condonation of delay is reproduced as under: “ That the ITA/2941/DEL/2025 was listed before the Hon'ble Bench 'C' of Delhi ITAT on 02/02/2026 and the same is being subsequently listed again on 25/02/2026. We are hereby making our submissions in order to substantiate the delay of 640 days in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi Benches of ITAT. In the impugned appeal, the appellant was issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29/03/2016. The assessment for the same was framed u/s 143(3)/147of the Act, on 15/12/2016. The appellant appealed against the impugned order and the CIT(A), NFAC decided the appeal on 19/05/2023. The appeal was to be filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal within the stipulated time as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, due to an inadvertent omission, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a delay of 640 days. The inordinate amount of delay has been explained as under:- That the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 640 days, for which the Appellant has filed a sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to such delay and respectfully seeks condonation thereof in the interest of justice. 2. That the Appellant was not aware of the passing of the ex-parte order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and came to know about the conclusion of appellate proceedings only upon receipt of a recovery notice from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in April 2025. 3. That immediately upon receipt of the recovery notice, the Appellant took prompt steps and filed the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 1st May 2025, without any further lapse or negligence, thereby demonstrating bona fide conduct and diligence once knowledge of the proceedings was obtained. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 3 BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO DELAY 4. That in the affidavit earlier filed on 29/04/2025, it was stated that the delay occurred due to professional differences and miscommunication with the previous counsel and unawareness of the Appellant regarding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The said affidavit was prepared on the basis of information available at that time. 5. That upon further discussions with the previous counsel and the accounts team of the Appellant, it has now come to light that the previous counsel could not represent the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessment records were not available to them. The previous counsel was under the bona fide belief that the Appellant was either handling the matter internally or had engaged some other professional. 6. That, unfortunately, the assessment records were also misplaced at the Appellant's end, and despite sincere and repeated efforts, the same could not be traced at the Appellant's office. 7. That due to the non-availability of the assessment records, no effective representation could be made before the Ld. CIT(A), which ultimately resulted in the passing of an ex- parte appellate order, without adjudication on merits. SEQUENT STEPS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT That once the Appellant realized the absence of assessment records, a written application dated 06/11/2025 was filed before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, requesting certified true copies of the assessment records in order to enable the Appellant to make proper and effective submissions before this Hon'ble Tribunal 9. That the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has informed the Appellant that the assessment proceedings were completed on 15/12/2016, and since the records are nearly a decade off, the department itself is facing difficulty in tracing the same. The Appellant has been advised to follow up by the end of February 2026 for further updates. BONAFIDE NATURE OF THE DELAY 10. That the delay in filing the appeal is entirely unintentional, bona fide, and occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, primarily owing to  Misplacement of assessment records.  Inability of the previous counsel to represent the matter due to lack of records.  Lack of knowledge regarding the passing of the ex-parte CTT(A) order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 4 11. That the Appellant has not derived any benefit whatsoever from the delay and has acted in good faith throughout. There is no deliberate inaction, negligence, or mala fide intention on the part of the Appellant. 12. That the Appellant is a law-abiding assessee and no other litigation, demand, or adverse proceedings are pending against the Appellant except the present impugned appeal. LEGAL POSITION ON CONDONATION OF DELAY 13. That it is a settled position of law that substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations, and that procedural delays, when properly explained, should not come in the way of adjudication on merits. 14. That the Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that \"sufficient cause\" should be interpreted liberally, particularly where no mala fide or deliberate delay is attributable to the assessee. 15. That denying condonation in the present case would cause grave and irreparable prejudice to the Appellant, whereas condoning the delay would merely enable adjudication on merits without causing any prejudice to the Revenue. Relevant Case Laws relied upon:- 1. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. [1979 (3) SCR 694 The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a delay caused by the negligence of the counsel, which misled the litigant into delayed pursuit of his remedy, can be condoned if the mistake was bona fide and not tainted by mala fide motives. 2. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 2 SCC 107| The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that substantial justice should not be denied merely on account of procedural technicalities, especially when the delay is caused by reasons beyond the control of the appellant. The court laid down broad principles for condonation of delay. emphasizing that when there is a sufficient cause, liberal interpretation should be adopted in favor of the applicant. 3. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] The Supreme Court observed that \"length of delay is not material, but the sufficiency of the cause is important.\" If the explanation is reasonable and genuine, the delay should be condoned to advance the cause of justice. 4. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [(2010) 6 SCC 786] Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 5 The Supreme Court ruled that \"while considering an application for condonation of delay, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one. 5. CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar (1985) 153 ITR 596 (Mad)] The Madras High Court held that procedural delays should not defeat justice, and the Income Tax Authorities should adopt a liberal approach while considering condonation requests. 6. Vedabai Alias VaijayanatabaiBaburao Patil v. ShantaramBaburao Patil & Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106] The Supreme Court emphasized that a distinction should be made between cases where delay is due to negligence and where it is caused due to bona fide reasons. Courts should lean in favor of granting relief in cases of genuine hardship. 7. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94] The court ruled that justice-oriented approach should be adopted, and hyper-technical viewsshould be avoided while deciding condonation applications. 8. Lala Mala Din v. A. Narayanan [1970 (2) SCR 90] The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. In that case it was held that the mistake committed by the counsel was bona fide and it was not tainted by any mala fide motive. That the appellant has a strong case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the appellant, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the appeal is heard and decided on merits.” Affidavit “ BEFORE THE HONORABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES In the matter of Allegorge Builders Private Limited for the A.V. 2009-10 Affidavit of Mr. Sharad Singhal s/o K.K. Singhal R/o H. No. 902, Tarang Orchid, Sector- 28. Faridabad-121008. 1. The Deponent, Mr. Sharad Singhal, holding DIN: 03195275, is the Director of the appellant company and is therefore fully conversant of the facts deposed below. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 6 2. That the deponent has received the Hon'ble CIT(A) order on 19 May 2023 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053015019(1). 3. That, the appellant was made aware of the appeal proceedings being concluded when they received corresponding recovery notice from the Jurisdictional A.O. in the month of April 2025 and consecutively the appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi Benches of ITAT was filed on 1 May 2025. 4. That in the previously filed affidavit on 29/04/2025 it was wrongly mentioned that owing to professional differences and miscommunication with the previous counsel the appellant was not able to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Benches on time and owing to unawareness of the appellant of the CIT(A) being passed the appeal was filed with a delay of 640 days. The affidavit was filed based on the information available at that time. 5. That, upon further discussion with previous counsel and the accounts team of the appellant, it is now evident that the previous counsel could not represent the case before the CIT(A) as the assessment records were not available to them. They had considered that the appellant is either representing the case themselves or through some other counsel. 6. That, the assessment records are misplaced at the appellant's end as well and despite several efforts the assessment records were not to be found at the appellant's office. 7. That, when appellant could not trace the assessment records, the appellant filed a written application before the Jurisdictional A.O. on 6 November 2025 so provide certified true copies of the assessment records so that a detailed submission could be made before the Hon'ble Delhi Benches of ITAT. 8. That, the Jurisdictional A.O. is finding it difficult to trace the assessment records as the assessment proceedings were concluded on 15/12/2026 and the assessment records are approximately a decade old. The Jurisdictional A.O. has stated that we touch base with them by end of February 2026 to seek an update on the application. 9. That, the appellant hereby prays that a bonafide mistake owing to misplacement of assessment records was made, no representation was made before the Hon'ble CIT(A) which lead to CIT(A) being ex-Parte order and appeal being filed before the Hon'ble Delhi Benches of ITAT being delayed by 640 days. 10. That, the appellant is a law abiding assessee and there are no pending cases or demands against the appellant except for the impugned appeal proceedings. 11. That, the delay is entirely bona fide and unintentional, arising from circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant owing to genuine mistake of misplacing the assessment records. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7 12. That, it is humbly prayed by the appellant that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits.” 2.1 Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by an ex-parte order. The Ld. AR further submitted that the hearing notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee and the assessee came to know about the conclusion of the appellate proceedings only upon receipt of a recovery notice of demand from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in April 2025. The Ld. AR submitted that in view of these circumstances, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted for the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. The ld. Sr. DR submits that multiple opportunities were given to the assessee to file submissions but the assessee failed to furnish any submissions or file relevant documents in support of his claim made in grounds of appeal. 4. Both sides heard. Considering the facts as stated in the condonation application, we condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. Further, considering the facts of the case and in interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to make submissions before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee and after considering the same and documents, if any, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2941/Del/2025 Allegorge Builders Pvt. Ltd. 8 furnished by the assessee shall decide the appeal of assessee on merits, in accordance with law. 5. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the Ld. CIT(A), without fail. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 27.02.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "