MOHIT SATSANGI,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

ITA 1362/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mohit Satsangi, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2023-24, which was initially dismissed due to a delay of 143 days in filing the appeal. The assessee had filed rectification applications with the AO, which were dismissed, leading to the delay. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, prompting the appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and legal precedents cited by the assessee, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a substantive decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771975 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Subhash Malik vs. CIT, SPS Educational and Welfare Society Versus DCIT-DPC, Dilip Kantilal Kapadia Versus ITO-17 (1) (4), Mumbai, R.A.K. Ceramics, UAE v. DCIT, Indira Educational and Charitable Trust, More Mover Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Autoliv India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Smt. Shilpa Gopala Reddy v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: BASANT KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI [ BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1362/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24) Mohit Satsangi, 24th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Delhi-110017. PAN-AWMPS2265D Vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Basant Kumar, Adv. and Ms. Sabhya Saachi Sharma, AR Department by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [CIT(A) in short], dated 22.01.2025 in Appeal No. Addl./JCIT-(A) Mumbai- 10036/2022-23 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal of the assessee is filed delayed by 143 days before the Ld. CIT(A), for which delay condonation petition was also filed, wherein it was stated by the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1362/Del/2025 Mohit Satsangi vs. ACIT assessee that he had filed rectification applications on two occasions before the AO for rectification of the order, however, both these applications were dismissed, therefore, the assessee had with no other alternate but to file the appeal before CIT(A) and in this process the same was got delayed by 143 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find any force in the reasons given by the assessee and not admitted the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. 3. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay is bonafide and there was reasonable cause as assessee was exploring the alternate remedy and acted in terms of legal advice therefore, the appeal was got delayed. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: -Subhash Malik vs. CIT 325 ITR 243 (ALL) -SPS Educational and Welfare Society Versus DCIT-DPC [2022 (9) TMI 87- ITAT DELHI) -Dilip Kantilal Kapadia Versus ITO-17 (1) (4), Mumbai [2021 (7) TMI 62-ITAT Mumbai) -R.A.K. Ceramics, UAE v. DCIT [2019 (4) TMI 667 – ITAT Hyderabada]’ -Indira Educational and Charitable Trust, (5) TMI 594-ITAT Chennai]’ -More Mover Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2020 (4) TMI 434-ITAT Amhedabad]. -Autoliv India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020 (2) TMI 211-ITAT Basngalore], - Smt. Shilpa Gopala Reddy v. ITO [2020 (4) TMI 646 ITAT Bangalore]. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and stated that there was no Bonafide reason and only when the assessee had failed in rectification proceedings, he proceeded to filed the appeal thus the delay should not be condoned. 5. After considering the facts and hearing both the parties, we find that in the instant case appeal of the assessee was dismissed as not Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1362/Del/2025 Mohit Satsangi vs. ACIT admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) for want of sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. As observed above, the assessee had duly explained the circumstance and cause due to which appeal was filed delayed before ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion, the explanation given by the assessee towards delay is bonafide and sufficient cause, therefore, the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Since, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, the entire appeal is remand to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to file all the submissions and necessary evidences in support of the claim. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In view of the above directions, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28.08.2025 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "