RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI, Delhi V. ITO WARD 56(3) DELHI, Delhi

ITA 1674/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4893 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DISHANT SETHI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1674/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi 341, Heritage Tower, Sawan CGHS Ltd. Plot No.1, Sector-3, Dwarka, Delhi-110078 PAN no.ABPPT7714C Vs. ITO Ward- 56 (3) Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Raja Rajeshwari, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 08/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”] vide order dated 12.02.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 and arises out of the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 under section 144/148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 24.10.2019, declaring total income of Rs.28,09,520/- which was processed u/s. 143 (1) of the Act. In the intimation issued u/s.143 (1) on 21-02-2020, THE DDIT/ADIT-CPC enhanced the assessee’s total income from Rs.28,09,520/- to Rs.45,85,250/- by making adjustment/disallowance/addition of Rs.17,75,726/-. Accordingly, the assessee income from the Head- Business and profession declared at Rs.21,08,961/- was computed at Rs.38,84,687/- after making an adjustment of Rs.17,75,726/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate HUF Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has dismissed the appeal as time bound and not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order dated 12-02-2024 was dismissed the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under :- “5.1 The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant in this appeal have been considered carefully. There is inordinate delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason has been given by the appellant. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned 3 order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: "In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard." In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time period/ limit. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. 4 For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal led by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and the delay is, therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the present appeal is not found fit for condonation and the same is dismissed without making any discussion/ adjudication on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and of this and facts DEN case, the appeal filed is in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that such delay was un-intentional, inadvertent and non-deliberate in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and may kindly be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may kindly be heard on merits. Reliance has been placed on the following judicial decisions :- (i) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh reported in 2010 6 SCC 786 (ii) Katiji & Othrs reported in 167 ITR 471 (iii) Ram Nath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201 5. Per contra the DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the 5 assessee. He has further submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and issue- in-dispute and perused the relevant material on record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We find that the delay has been caused mainly due to illness and the death of his mother due to covid-19. The Hon’ble Apex court has also extended the limitation period during the COVID-19. Relying on the decision cited above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no mala fide or deliberate in action on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with delay of more than two and half years before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has the sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The Ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and should have decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal before him and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit in accordance with law after considering the submission of the assessee. The grounds of appeal by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6 Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:- 14.08.2024 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI