DESH RAM,MUMTAJPUR, GURGAON, HARYANA V. ITO,WARD 1(4), GURGAON

ITA 1194/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Desh Ram Mumtajpur, the appellant, who contested an assessment order that added Rs. 1,42,36,392 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) dismissed the initial appeal due to a 255-day delay in filing, attributing the delay to the appellant's unawareness of the proceedings and health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal considered the appellant's lack of technical knowledge and the circumstances of the pandemic as potential justifications for the delay and decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 22948 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, Postmaster General & Ors vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1194/Del/2024 Desh Ram Mumtajpur Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1194/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Desh Ram Mumtajpur Ward No. 05, Baspadamka B.O. Mumtajpur (38), Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: AJIPR3006Q Vs ITO Ward 1(4) Grugaon, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ankit Aggarwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘NFAC’ for short) dated 15/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under: - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, following grounds has been raised by the assessee: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to assessee to present the condonation of delay 2 ITA No. 1194/Del/2024 Desh Ram Mumtajpur Vs. ITO 2. In the interest of justice, delay of (no, of days) should be condoned to the Assessee. he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107, has laid down that the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach in matters of condonation of delay, emphasizing that a liberal approach should be taken in the interests of justice, especially when no negligence or inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the appellant. 3. Assessee is a non tech person who was unaware of the assessment proceedings as he resides in the village during COVID year FY 21-22, and assessment notices were served on the email of the previous counsel of the assessee, who was no longer engaged with the assessee, only when son of assessee visited him in November in hospital, he became aware of assessee's situation and immediately filed appeal. 4. It is submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr (2012) 3 SCC 563, reiterated that if sufficient cause is demonstrated, condonation of delay is to be considered favorably. That the appellant prays that the appeal may be admitted and order may be passed rendering the Justice to the Appellant.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that; an assessment order came to be passed on 22/03/2022 by making an addition of Rs. 1,42,36,392/- by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) read with Section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22/03/2022. As against the assessment order, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee vide order dated 3 ITA No. 1194/Del/2024 Desh Ram Mumtajpur Vs. ITO 15/02/2024 on account of delay in latches as there was a delay of 255 days in filing the Appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 05/02/2024, the Assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings, as the Assessee resides in a village and during Covid pandemic and the Assessee was unwell, therefore, could not file the Appeal on time, thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative contended that the Assessee has not narrated the sufficient cause for filing the Appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, condonation of delay has been rightly dismissed and consequently dismissed the Appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee was unwell, who is an uneducated person resides in a village and due to covid situation, the notice has not been served on the Assessee as the Assessee has given the e-mail id of the previous counsel. However, the 4 ITA No. 1194/Del/2024 Desh Ram Mumtajpur Vs. ITO Assessee has not mentioned those cause in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the Appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Assessee to file better application/affidavit by narrating the sufficient cause for delay of 255 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and if such application is filed, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the same liberally and decide the Appeal on its merit. Accordingly, we restore the Appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 29 .01.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 1194/Del/2024 Desh Ram Mumtajpur Vs. ITO "