ANUJ KUCCHAL,SHAMLI V. ITO WARD 3(1)(4), SHAMLI

ITA 7151/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Anuj Kuchhal, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2013-14. The first appeal (ITA No. 7151/Del/2025) challenged the dismissal of the assessee's appeal on grounds of limitation concerning an assessment order passed ex-parte under sections 147 and 144D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second appeal (ITA No. 7150/Del/2025) was against a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was also dismissed on similar grounds. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly notified of the assessment proceedings, leading to the delay in filing appeals, and thus decided to set aside the orders and remand the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841042 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471, Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ GOEL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री ब्रजेश क ुमार स िंह, लेखाकार सिस्य क े समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7151 & 7150/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2013-14) ITA Nos. 7151 & 7150/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2013-14) Anuj Kuchhal, Kheri Kamu, Delhi Road, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776 PAN: AIGPK-2497-R ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant by: Shri Pankaj Goel, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 25/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee for AY 2013-14 are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’). In ITA No. 7151/Del/2025, the assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) whereby appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine on account of limitation. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.7150/Del/2025 arises out of penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the said appeal also the assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) dismissing appeal in limine on ground of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 7151 & 7150/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2013-14) 2. Since, both appeals pertain to AY 2013-14, one against confirming addition and other on account of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA No. 7151/Del/2025 3. Shri Pankaj Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144D of the Act was completed in the case of assessee vide order dated 29.03.2022 in ex-parte proceedings. The notice(s) issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) were never received by the assessee. The notices were sent by the Assessing Officer on the email address of the assessee’s tax consultant who neither communicated the notice(s) from the AO to the assessee nor took any action on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could neither respond to the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s.148 of the Act or the subsequent notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In absence of any reply from the assessee, the AO completed the assessment invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act. Since, the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the assessee could not file appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A) within the period of limitation. The assessee came to know about the assessment order much later and immediately, thereafter, the assessee contacted another Counsel and filed appeal before the CIT(A). In the meantime, delay of 1047 days occurred in filing of appeal. Along with appeal the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The assessee is undergoing medical treatment for depression. He placed on record copies of medical treatment of the assessee. He contended that the CIT(A) without granting further opportunity of hearing to the assessee dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 7151 & 7150/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2013-14) of delay. No opportunity was granted to the assessee to make submissions on the ground of delay or on merits. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has now updated correct email address on the portal of Income Tax Department. The notices can now either be sent on the email address updated on the web portal of the Department or the email address mentioned in Form No. 36. 5. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently opposed submissions of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) with inordinate delay of 1047 days. The assessee failed to explain reasons for delay in filing of appeal as mandated under the law of limitation. He thus prayed for rejecting explanation furnished by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority and upholding the impugned order. 6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority with a delay of 1047 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) which was dismissed. The assessee has explained reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A); as the notices from the Income Tax Department were coming on the e- mail address of the assessee’s tax consultant and he never communicated said notices to the assessee. Thus, the assessee was neither aware of assessment proceedings nor the assessment order. Further, assessee’s medical condition compounded assessee’s problem which resulted in delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 7151 & 7150/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2013-14) 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice. 7.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 7.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. 8. Considering entire facts of the case, the law expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 7151 & 7150/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2013-14) to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. 9. The AO shall issue notice(s) to the assessee on the email address available on the official portal of the Department or the email address furnished by the assessee in Form No. 36 i.e. [e-mail] 10. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail. 11. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.7150/Del/2025 12. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), whereby the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning delay of five days. This appeal emanates from penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, the assessment order in respect of which penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been set aside, penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act would not survive. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 13. To sum up, ITA No.7151/Del/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.7150/Del/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 25th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली / Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 26/02/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos. 7151 & 7150/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2013-14) NV/- प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., सिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "