ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 92/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Eradicatus Infectus Private Limited, formerly known as Genestore India (P) Ltd., appealing against the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh, which dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 246 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's reliance on a rectification application pending with the CPC, Bengaluru, which was decided late. The ITAT found that the delay was caused by a bonafide reason and not by any malafide intention, leading to the decision to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780439 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.92/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23) Eradicatus Infectus Private Limited (Formerly known as Genestore India (P) Ltd.) D-34, Third Floor, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-110021 PAN-AAICG1096M Vs. The DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vikas Singh, CA Department by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [CIT(A), in Short] dt. 12.08.2024 in appeal No. Addl/JCIT (A)-1 Chandogarh/10015/2021-22, arising out of the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.04.2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the appeal is delayed by 65 days for which delay condonation petition is filed wherein it is stated that the appeal was filed online on 30.09.2024 against the appellate order dated 12.08.2024 i.e. within a period of 60 days from the receipt of the order appealed against. However, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.92/Del/2025 Eradicatus Infectus Private Limited vs. DCIT inadvertently, the appeal was filed with ITAT, Chandigarh benches instead of ITAT Delhi benches and the ITAT Chandigarh had returned the appeal filed by the assessee on 30.09.2024, thereafter, the present appeal is filed before the Bench which delayed by 65 days. It is thus submitted that the delay is Bonafide and there was due to the error the delay had occurred, therefore, it is prayed to condone the delay. After considering the submissions of the assessee, we find that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal delayed as appeal was already filed in time before the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in terms of the acknowledgement no.1727683840 dated 30.09.2024. Accordingly, we hereby condoned the delay and admitted the same for adjudication. 3. From the perusal of the appellate order, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal was delayed by 246 days and, therefore, the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. The reason given for the delay was that the assessee has filed return claiming the deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act which was disallowed by the CPC, Bengaluru in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act and an application for rectification of the same was filed before the CPC wherein the assessee was every of hope success. Since, the said application was decided late by the CPC, therefore, the appeal against the order passed u/s 143(1) dated 29.04.2023 was filed delayed by 246 days. The Ld. CIT(A) has not found any merit in the reasons stated above, and dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay and not admitting the same. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the appeal was filed delayed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the reasons explained before the Ld. CIT(A) as stated above could not be ignored. We find that by filing the appeal delayed the assessee would not gain anything and there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.92/Del/2025 Eradicatus Infectus Private Limited vs. DCIT assessee has filed rectification application and waited for its disposal, this was a bonafide reason. It must be a seen that in every case of delay, there may be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned that alone is not enough to shut the doors of justice and if the explanation does not smack of malafide or not found as a part of dilatory strategy, the Court must consider the delay in sympathetic manner and the right of hearing of appeal on merits ought not to be denied to the litigant. 5. Considering overall facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10.10.2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "