FINE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4884/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Fine Properties P. Ltd. against orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The appeals were initially time-barred, with delays of 2,473 days and 3,022 days respectively. The assessee attributed the delays to the death of their Chartered Accountant, who was handling their tax matters. The Tribunal, referencing various Supreme Court decisions, adopted a liberal approach towards the condonation of delay, emphasizing that the acceptance of reasons for delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. However, it also noted the assessee's responsibility in following up on the appeal process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840097 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 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: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Apeejay Education Society vs. DCIT (Exemption), Alankit Imaginations Ltd. vs. DCIT, N. Balakrishnan vs. Krishnamurthy, Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SALIL KAPOOR; SHIVAM YADAV; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Set aside

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.4884 & 4883/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2012-13 & 2011-12) ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) Fine Properties P. Ltd., 6, Alipur Road, Ganpati Apartment, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 PAN: AAACF-1941-J ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110002 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant by: S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Shivam Yadav, Advocates 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: This appeal by the assessee in ITA No.4884/Del/2025, is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.02.2017, for AY 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time-barred by 2,473 days. The assessee has filed an application, supported by an affidavit, citing reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The delay in filing of appeal has been attributed to the Chartered Accountant who was handling tax matters of the assessee. An affidavit in support of the condonation Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) application has been filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, an associate of late Shri L.N. Malik, Chartered Accountant. The contents of the affidavit are as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate, as the assessee would not have gained anything by not filing appeal against ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It is evident from the affidavit that the delay in filing of appeal occurred on account of death of the Chartered Accountant, Shri L.N. Malik, who was handling the assessee’s tax matters. The ld. Counsel in support of his submissions for condoning delay in filing of appeal placed reliance on following decisions: 1. Apeejay Education Society vs. DCIT (Exemption), ITA No. 709/Chd/2022; 2. Alankit Imaginations Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.895 to 900/Del/2023; 3. N. Balakrishnan vs. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123; & 4. Collector Land Aqusitition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 387 SCR 2 3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently opposed the assessee application for condonation delay. The ld. DR submits that Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) the assessee is recalcitrate, the assessee neither appeared before the CIT(A) nor filed appeal before the Tribunal within time. In fact, the appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay 2473 days. The delay in filing of appeal has not been properly explained by the assessee in accordance with the law of limitation. The assessee was required to explain delay of each day in filing of appeal. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee has explained that the delay in filing of appeal occurred because of death of Shri. L N. Malik, Chartered Accountant who was authorized to represent the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. An affidavit has been filed by the associate of Chartered Account Shri L.N Malik. Ostensibly, the delay occurred on account of mishandling of the assessee’s tax files in the office of assessee’s tax consultant. However, the assessee cannot escape absolutely from its responsibility of pursuing the appeal. The assessee ought to have been diligent and responsible in following up the appeal or at least the result of appeal. The duty of assessee does not end with engaging and handing over of appeal documents to the Chartered Accountant. The assessee has to purse its own case. Nevertheless, explanation furnished for delay in filing of appeal cannot be outrightly rejected in light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard dealing with such applications. 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. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) 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 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. 6. From perusal of the impugned order it emerges that repeated adjournments were sought on behalf of the assessee for making submissions. The CIT(A) granted as many as nine opportunities to the assessee to make submissions. The manner in which appeal has handled by the AR of assessee shows lack of professionalism and casualness in the approach of AR of the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case and conduct of assessee, we are of view that the appeal of assessee can be allowed but not without paying for its lackadaisical approach. The assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- as per the Rule 32A(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) Tribunal) Rules, 1963 within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. Subject to payment of above cost, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. 7. The assessee shall appear/make submissions before the CIT(A) upon service of notice, without fail. 8. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.4883/Del/2025 9. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.08.2018, for AY 2011- 12, upholding levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 10. The appeal is time barred by 3022 days. The reasons for delay in filing of appeal is similar to the one as mentioned in In ITA no.4884/Del/2025 decided above. 11. For parity of reasons, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to payment of cost Rs.5,000/- in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. Subject to payment of above cost, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos. 4884 & 4883/DEL/2025 (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2011-12) 12. To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid. 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 27/02/2026 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 "