MUKUL GARG,HARIDWAR V. ITO, ROORKEE

ITA 32/DDN/2025

AI Insights

Mukul Garg, the appellant, challenged the order passed under section 154A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee, which included waiting for a corrected demand order from the income tax department and not receiving any intimation about the rectification of mistakes in the tax return. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasized the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities and decided to condone the delay, imposing a nominal cost.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717437 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2025
• 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: A. S. RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SAHNI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 32/DDN/2025 Mukul Garg Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “SMC”/ DEHRADUN] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 32/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Mukul Garg, 383/1, Jadugar Road, Civil Lines, Roorkee H. O., Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India, 247667 PAN: AFDPG7612J Vs. Income Tax Officer Roorkee Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CA Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 16/01/2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an order u/s 154A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 29/07/2022 which has been challenged by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 514 days. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 16/01/2025 dismissed the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 32/DDN/2025 Mukul Garg Vs. ITO Appeal on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16/01/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal without condoning the delay in latches in filing the first appeal and the order impugned is against principals of natural justice. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 514 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated29/07/2022, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 514 days. The Assessee in his application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A) assigned following reason:- ‘we had accepted addition for Rs. 36190/- and had deposited due tax on it along with disapproving the demand on balance addition for Rs. 1617447.00. We were waiting for a fresh order, which never came against Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 32/DDN/2025 Mukul Garg Vs. ITO the demand on the income tax site, we kept disagreeing with the demand and waiting for the correction neither the rectification of the mistake appearance from the ITR was done, nor any other intimation. It was only when the Assessee received the notice from the local ITO, that he realized that his plea for correction of the demand was not given heed to. Hence the delay. The Assessee is extremely sorry for the same, and pleads to condone the delay.” However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal. 6. It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. 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 supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 514 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by imposing the cost of Rs. 1000/- which shall be deposited by the Assessee in Prime Minister Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 32/DDN/2025 Mukul Garg Vs. ITO National Relief Fund. Accordingly, 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. 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 13.08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "