SH. SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN V. ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), DEHRADUN

ITA 84/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Sanjay Kumar against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre) which dismissed his appeal on both procedural grounds (delay in filing) and merits (undisclosed investment). The initial assessment added Rs. 27,30,000 as undisclosed investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee's appeal was initially dismissed due to a significant delay (over one year) without sufficient cause, and subsequently on merits. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found procedural errors in the dismissal and restored the case for re-evaluation, emphasizing the need to consider the Assessee's medical reasons for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822637 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SAHINI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA NO. 84/DDN/2025 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘DB’ (SMC)’/ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 84/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Sanjay Kumar 34 34ShankerpurHukumatpur 248197, Uttarakhand, PAN: AAUBPK4159P Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(3), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CA Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 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 20/09/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 167 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, contending that the C.A. who was looking after the matter passed away on 19th December, 2023 and the Assessee was not aware of the disposal of the First Appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Further claimed that the Assessee came to know Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 84/DDN/2025 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO about passing of the order impugned only after approaching another Chartered Accountant and on coming to know belatedly about the passing of the order impugned, immediately the Assessee filed the present Appeal. Thus contended that the delay caused in filing the present Appeal is not intentional and sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. On hearing on the delay in filing the Appeal and for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay, delay of 167 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 15/12/2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 27,30,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of undisclosed investment. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15/12/2018, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of ‘more than one year’. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/09/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches as well as on merit. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20/09/2024, the Assessee preferred the present appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 84/DDN/2025 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay. Further, made elaborate submissions on the merits of the case by addressing other Grounds of Appeal and sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the lower authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of ‘more than one year’ in filing the First Appeal and dismissed the Appeal in-limine for delay in latches at Paragraph-3 of the order impugned. However, the Ld. CIT(A) further adjudicated the Appeal on its merits and once again dismissed the Appeal in Paragraph 5 of the order impugned. Once, the Appeal is dismissed on delay in latches, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot adjudicate the Appeal on its merits. 8. During the first appellate proceedings the Assessee contended that the Appeal could not be filed due to ‘medical reasons’. The Ld. CIT(A) found that ‘reply of the Assessee appears to be very general in nature. In the absence of any affidavit along with the documentary evidences the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 84/DDN/2025 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO reason stated by the appellant for delay in filing of the appeal cannot be accepted as sacrosanct’. Accordingly, relying on the judicial precedents dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. 9. Though, the Assessee has not produced documents in support of his medical illness in order to explain the delay in filing the Appeal. In view of rendering substantial justice, we restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a liberty to the Assessee to produce supporting documents for his illness which resulted in filing the First Appeal belatedly. If such documents are produced by the Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the same and condone the delay in filing the Appeal by adopting liberal approach. Further, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the First Appeal on merits in accordance with law if the delay in filing the first appeal is condoned. 10. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 23.12.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 84/DDN/2025 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "