KUSUM BHARADWAJ,MATHURA V. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

ITA 91/AGR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kusum Bharadwaj against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed her appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The delay was attributed to personal hardships, including her husband's major health issues and the recent death of her brother-in-law. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds and found the reasons for the delay sufficient, thus condoning it and allowing the appeal to proceed.

• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Agra
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 91/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kusum Bharadwaj, LIG-74 IInd Phase, Mahavidhya Colony, Mathura-281003 Vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura PAN : BZOPS4811D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.03.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10305277 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.91/Agr/2026 2 | P a g e 2. At the very outset, before going on merits and after hearing the parties, it is noticed that first appeal was filed on 19.12.2023 against the assessment order dated 23.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by a delay of about 241 days. The ground for delay stated before ld CIT(A) was as under:“Because my husband is a major heart patient and my brother in law died last month who was undergoing treatment.” The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed period. Ld CIT(A), however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine. 3. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice can not to be followed. The cause shown on behalf of the assessee appears to us to be sufficient. We, accordingly, condone the said delay caused in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.91/Agr/2026 3 | P a g e 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e. learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced on – 27.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.03.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "