MAM CHAND SINGH,DELHI V. DCIT,CIRCLE-67(1), DELHI

SA 99/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mam Chand Singh, the appellant, who contested an ex-parte assessment order under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 52,81,642 due to the appellant's non-participation in the assessment proceedings. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 132 days, attributed to the death of the appellant's tax consultant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal, referencing precedents from the Supreme Court, emphasized a liberal approach towards condonation of delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, restoring the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39372 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471, Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Application of stay
• Section: 148; 144; 22

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं मनीष अŤवाल, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 99/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1045/Del/2025, A.Y 2018-19) & ITA No. 1045/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19 Mam Chand Singh, L 85, II Floor, Malviya Nagar, Delhi 110017 PAN: APOPS-1590-Q ...... आवेदक/Applicant/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 67(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent आवेदक/Applicant : S/Shri Arun Yadav & Shashank Shekhar Shukla, Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Salil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 28/02/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 28/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: The assessee has filed an application for stay of outstanding demand for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 132 days. An application for condonation of delay was also filed citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. He submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits. The CIT(A) at threshold dismissed the appeal without even looking at 2 SA No.99/DEL/2025 ITA no. 1045/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19) merits. The ld. Counsel prayed that the assessee being individual, agriculturist will suffer irreparable loss if recovery of outstanding demand for impugned assessment year is not stayed. 3. During the course of hearing of Stay Application it is observe that the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer invoking provision of section 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appeal filed against ex- parte assessment order is dismissed in limine by the CIT(A). 4. With the assent of both sides, appeal is taken up for hearing along with Stay Application. ITA No. 1045/Del/2025 5. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 21.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assesee did not file return of income in response to the said notice. Further, the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.52,81,642/-. 6. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order. The appeal was time barred by 132 days. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing appeal. The primary reason given for non appearance of assessee in assessment proceedings and delay in filing of First Appeal is, the death of Tax Consultant of assessee during second wave of Covid-19 in the year 2021. The CIT(A) rejected the cause given by assessee/appellant for filing and dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. 3 SA No.99/DEL/2025 ITA no. 1045/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19) 7. 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. 7.1 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. 7.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others 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. 8. Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for denovo assessment. The AO shall grant reasonable 4 SA No.99/DEL/2025 ITA no. 1045/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19) opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law before passing the fresh assessment order. 9. The assessee is directed to respond to the notice(s) issued by the AO, without fail. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that for service of notice the AO may issue notice on following email id:- [e-mail] The AO shall issue notice to the assessee on the said email id. 10. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. SA No. 99/Del/2025 11. Since, appeal of assessee has been decided, the Stay Application filed by the assessee has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 28th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी / Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 28/02/2025 NV/- 5 SA No.99/DEL/2025 ITA no. 1045/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19) ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "