SH. ARVIND SINGH ,RISHIKESH V. ITO, RISHIKESH, RISHIKESH

ITA 183/DDN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Arvind Singh against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which dismissed his earlier appeal due to a delay of 171 days. The tribunal considered the reasons for the delay, which were attributed to the assessee's ill health, supported by a medical certificate. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing that delays should be condoned if justified by sufficient cause, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707061 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2024
• 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: K. K. JUNEJA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 183/DDN/2024 Sh. Arvind Singh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “DEHRADUN”/ NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 183/DDN/2024 (A.Y 2014-15) Arvind Singh Bahuguna, Marg, Ward No. 10, Dhalwala, Munikrieti, Rishikesh, District TehriUttarakhand PAN: BWRPS3145N Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4)(1), Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 28/08/2024for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 88 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that due to his ill health, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time, which resulted in delay of 88 days in filing the Appeal which is not intentional. Further by relying on the medical certificate, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 2 ITA No. 183/DDN/2024 Sh. Arvind Singh 3. Heard the parties on the delay. For the reason stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay, the delay of 88 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 24/03/2023under Section 147 r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 78,68,110/- as against the returned income of Rs. 6,74,460/- by making certain addition. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24/03/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/08/2024, 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. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Appeal without condoning the delay of 171 days which is not only erroneous but also against settled position of law. Thus, Ld. Assessee's Representative sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 3 ITA No. 183/DDN/2024 Sh. Arvind Singh 7. 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 Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal in delay in latches of 171 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) at this is no sufficient cause. The Assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that due to his ill health the Assessee could not file the Appeal well within the period of limitation prescribed in the Act. 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. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 171 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by remanding the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merit after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Needless to say, the Assessee is at liberty to produce any document in support of his claim before the Ld. CIT(A). 4 ITA No. 183/DDN/2024 Sh. Arvind Singh 9. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th July , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-09 .07.2025 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 "