S.H DHARMENDRA,GHAZIABAD V. IT0 CGO COMPLEX- I NFAC HAPUR CHUGI, UTTAR PRADESH

ITA 5291/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves S.H. Dharmendra, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing. The original assessment order was passed on 27/03/2023 under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which included certain additions to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed Dharmendra's appeal on 05/07/2025, citing a delay of 599 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasized the need to consider delays in a liberal manner when justifiable reasons are presented, thus remanding the case for a fresh decision on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842317 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• 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: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPANSHU AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 5291/Del/2025 S.H. Dharmendra Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5291/Del/2025 ( A.Y 2018-19) S. H. Dharmendra Ward-6, Faridnagar, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) 245304 PAN: CGMPD0771M (APPLICANT) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (RESPONDENT) 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 05/07/2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 27/03/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/03/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05/07/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. Appellant by Sh. Deepanshu Agarwal, CA Respondent by Ms. AnkushKalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5291/Del/2025 S.H. Dharmendra Vs. ITO 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in dismissing the Appeal on delay in latches, though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 599 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 the Parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/03/2023, Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 599 days. As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that the Assessee has discontinued his business on 31/03/2018 and has not filed ITR for Assessment Year 2019-20 to Assessment Year 2022-23 and was unaware of income tax proceedings since the notices were sent on the email id of the old tax consultant.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, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5291/Del/2025 S.H. Dharmendra Vs. ITO 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. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 599 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with cost of Rs. 2000/- which shall be paid by the Assessee to prime Minister National Relief Fund. Further 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. 8. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 26th Day of February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26/02/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 5291/Del/2025 S.H. Dharmendra Vs. ITO R. Naheed * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "