JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, PANCHKULA

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jyoti Sharma against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed her appeal due to delayed filing. The delay was attributed to personal circumstances following her divorce, which led her to relocate and lose track of income tax demands. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the CIT(A)'s previous decisions on similar grounds in related cases, where delays were condoned. Consequently, the Tribunal found it just and proper to condone the delay in the current case and remand it for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717594 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ᮰ी िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव, लेखा सद᭭य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 192 /Chd/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jyoti Sharma D/o Mohal Lal Sharma, H.No. 18, Village Ghatiwala, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana- 134102 बनाम The ITO Ward-2 Panchkula, Haryana ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BMIPS6461E अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : None (Adj. Application Rejected) राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/08/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Surat dt. 05/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application has been submitted by Mr. Vigyan Prakash Arora, Counsel for the assessee. On perusal of the adjournment application, I find that no reasonable cause has been stated which prevented the Counsel from attending to the present proceedings. Further, it is noted that adjournment has been sought earlier on similar grounds and the Bench has been liberal in granting the adjournment. Taking into consideration the matter involved in the present appeal, it was decided to proceed with the matter as no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on the record. 3. In her ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delayed filing of the appeal. As part of statement of facts, it was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to Printed from counselvise.com 2 appreciate the fact that the similar delay had happened while filing the appeal against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(d) of the Act and in those matters, similar reasons were submitted seeking condonation of delay and the reasons were found reasonable for condoning the delay and delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). However, when it comes to the mater under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a different approach and has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay. It was accordingly submitted that the said action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. 4. In the instant case, I find that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has submitted reason for the delayed filing of the said appeal by stating that she being a single divorced lady was living with her parents in Himachal Pradesh after her divorce and was not available at her address in Pinjore and she was not aware of any income tax demands pending. It was only after her refund for A.Y. 2022-23 was adjusted under section 245 that she got in touch with the office of AO, made the request for providing copy of all the orders and documents and the same were thereafter provided to the Counsel for filing the appeal and appeals were filed. The Ld. CIT(A) has however held that these were not reasonable cause for delayed filing of the appeal and the appeal was held not maintainable and the same was dismissed. 5. I also refer to the order under section 250 passed in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is available as part of the assessee’s paper book at page 44 to 47 wherein I find that the similar reason for the delayed in filing of the appeal has been stated by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay stating that the assessee has submitted the explanation for her fault to file the appeal within the prescribed time frame. The assessee has mentioned that she was divorced lady and had moved to her parents in Himachal Pradesh after her divorce and was not available at her address in Pinjore. Taking the explanation of the assessee into consideration and in the interest of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that there was sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal and delay was condoned. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order under section 250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act where again, for similar reasons the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 6. I therefore find that there are divergent views taken by the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the present appeal and the other two appeals whereas the reasons and explanation submitted by the assessee seeking condonation of delay is consistent across all the three matters. I do not see any justifiable basis to take a different view and considering the fact that in two of the matters, the explanation so furnished by the assessee has been found reasonable, I find that it would be just and proper that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and the appeal be admitted for necessary adjudication on merits. I accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/08/2025 ) Sd/- िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) लेखा सद᭭य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 14/08/2025 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File Printed from counselvise.com "