LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,MEERUT V. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

ITA 2482/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Lokesh Kumar Sharma, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which made an addition of Rs. 2,13,85,026 under Section 69A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant faced significant personal hardships, including the death of his wife and financial crises, which he claimed prevented him from filing the appeal in a timely manner. The Department's Representative opposed the condonation of delay, citing insufficient cause. However, the Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to such delays in the interest of substantial justice, decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHIMANSHU KANSAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA Nos. 2482/Del/2025 Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2482/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) Lokesh Kumar Sharma H. No. 314, Banwari Vatika Gupta Colony, Near Transprot Nagar Mart, Uttar Pradesh PAN: AVPPK1128H Vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4) Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 27/09/2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee was suffering under the depression due to expire of his wife and she left two minor children, out one child is 100% percent handicapped and after that his father expired. Under the depression Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 2482/Del/2025 Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO and under the financial crises he was not in this position to pursue his case in any authorities. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee in the Affidavit for condonation of delay contended that the Assessee was suffering under the depression due to expire of his wife and she left two minor children, out one child is 100% percent handicapped and after that his father expired. Under the depression and under the financial crises he was not in this position to pursue his case in any authorities, therefore, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time before the Tribunal. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 2482/Del/2025 Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal by imposing cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall be paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 31/12/2019 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making addition of Rs. 2,13,85,026/- under Section 69A the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/12/2019, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/09/2022, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 8. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of Lower authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 2482/Del/2025 Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 26 .09.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 2482/Del/2025 Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO Printed from counselvise.com "