CHANDRA GOSWAMI,CHITTARANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI V. ADDL JCIT, MUMBAI

ITA 3230/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chandra Goswami, who retired from Dayal Singh College and received arrears of pension which were inadvertently added twice to her income, leading to an incorrect tax assessment. After unsuccessful attempts at rectification and revision under sections 154 and 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively, and facing a significant delay in filing an appeal due to exploring alternate remedies, her appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) for being time-barred. The Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court precedents, emphasized a liberal approach to the 'sufficient cause' standard for condonation of delay and restored the case for a fresh examination on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29190 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• 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 AIR 1201 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT BANSAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Revised return
• Section: 250; 154; 22; 264

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3230/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) ITA No.3230/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2020-21) Chandra Goswami, F-1090, Chittarnjan Park, Delhi 110019 PAN: AAEPG-5171-C ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-69(1), Delhi ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Amit Bansal ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 03.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 07.06.2024, for assessment year 2020-21. 2. Shri Amit Bansal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee has retired from Dayal Singh College, University of Delhi on 01.01.2018. She got arrears of pension amounting to Rs.8,47,206/- during Financial Year 2019- 20. The assessee filed her original return of income on 17.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs.32,86,460/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income 2 ITA No.3230/DEL/2024 (AY 2020-21) on 13.02.2021 again declaring total income of Rs.8,43,060/- and claimed refund of Rs.130/-. Later on, the assessee discovered that arrears of pension Rs.8,47,206/- received by the assessee during Financial Year 2019-20 have been added twice, inadvertently. The assessee filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) but remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, the assessee approached PCIT for revision of income u/s.254 of the Act. However, the said petition of the assessee was also rejected. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Since, the assessee was exploring alternate remedy to get the desired relief, there was delay of about two years in filing of appeal. The assessee filed condonation petition explaining reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s petition for condonation and dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. Counsel submits that the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional. The assessee following advice of her tax consultant had filed petition for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act and, thereafter, revision petition u/s. 264 of the Act. Since, the assessee failed to get the desired relief in alternate remedies available, the assessee, finally filed appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department strongly supporting the order of CIT(A) prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to explain “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine as the same was filed beyond limitation. Undisputedly, the first appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by two years (approx). I have examined the reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of 3 ITA No.3230/DEL/2024 (AY 2020-21) appeal before the First Appellate Authority. After examining the same, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant. The assessee was perusing alternate remedies for getting the relief. As the assessee failed to get desired relief, the assessee ultimately filed appeal u/s. 250 of the Act before the CIT(A). The assessee has been able to explain “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 5. 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. 5.1 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. 5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others 2002 AIR 1201 (SC) 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 4 ITA No.3230/DEL/2024 (AY 2020-21) 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. 6. In light of facts of the case and the law expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee/appellant, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 03rd day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 03.02.2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. 5 ITA No.3230/DEL/2024 (AY 2020-21) BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "