VISSA USHASRI,WEST BENGAL V. DCIT, CIRCLE-191), SALEM

ITA 1416/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Vissa Ushasri, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, which was dated 17.09.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the belated filing of the appeal, which the Ld.CIT(A) initially dismissed as being filed late by '644' days. However, the assessee argued that the actual delay was less than '70' days due to medical and pandemic-related restrictions. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the assessee's health issues and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by medical reports and affidavits, and found sufficient cause to condone the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716931 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS SURANA; VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1416/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vissa Ushasri, Block-5, Flat No.4F, Jalpaiguri, Siliguri, West Bengal-735 101. v. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem. [PAN: AACPU 0932 D] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Vikas Surana, CA (Virtual) \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 17.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that appeal has been belatedly filed after ‘167’ days and in order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit supporting the averments made therein. After considering the contents of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1416 /Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Vissa Ushasri :: 2 :: application for condonation of delay and the affidavit, filed in support of it, we find sufficient cause for condoning the delay, so we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order. According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that there was a delay of ‘644’ days in filing of the appeal before him and without condoning the delay and holding appeal not to be maintainable before him, he dismissed the appeal. Assailing the action of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR brought to our notice that assessment order in this case was passed on 03.12.2019, therefore, the assessee had to file the appeal within ‘30’ days from the date of receipt of the assessment order. Therefore, the assessee having received the assessment order on 20.12.2019 had to file within ‘30’ days meaning on 19th January, 2020, however, the assessee was bedridden due to Cerebro-vascular accident and was undergoing continuous treatment from December, 2019. Due to hospitalization, assessee couldn’t handover the relevant documents to his Counsel within ‘30’ days and by the time, he handed over the assessment order as well as relevant documents to his Counsel, there was spread of Covid-19 pandemic i.e. from 20.03.2020 onwards and there were restrictions placed by the Government clamping down free movement of public. Hence assessee could ultimately file appeal before Ld CIT(A) only on 07.09.2021, which according to assessee is covered by the decision of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1416 /Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Vissa Ushasri :: 3 :: Hon’ble Supreme Court suo moto orders during Covid-19 by which limitation period between 20.03.2020 to 30.05.2022 was extended. So, according to Ld AR the Ld CIT(A) erred in stating that assesse’s appeal was filed belatedly by ‘644’ days, wheras it is less than 70 days. Having considered the factual events discussed (supra) and taking notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court suo moto orders during Covid-19 period wherein the Hon’ble Court had time to time extended the limitation time from 20.03.2020 to 30.05.2022, in the present case, we need to condone the delay between 20.03.2020 to 07.09.2021 [date of filing of appeal before ld CIT(A)]. In such an event, the delay in filing appeal is only from 19.01.2020 to 20.03.2020 i.e. around ‘60’ days only. In the light of discussion, according to us, the assertion made by the Ld.CIT(A) that there was a delay of ‘644’ days in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) can’t be accepted. From the contents of the affidavit filed by assessee, as well as the application for condoning the delay [which is supported by medical reports], we note that the assessee was not well due to medical complication affected by Cerebro-vascular accident and therefore, couldn’t hand over the documents to the Ld.AR before 20.03.2020 [02.01.2020 ‘78’ days] and it is noted that the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 07.09.2021 which period is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court suo-moto order as discussed supra. Therefore, the delay if counted from the date of passing of the assessment order itself, it would not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1416 /Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Vissa Ushasri :: 4 :: exceed ‘78‘ days and not ‘644’ days as asserted by the Ld.CIT(A). Having taken note of medical reports and discussion (supra), we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal as per sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after hearing the assessee. 4. The assessee is directed to file written submissions along with relevant documents to support his grounds of appeal. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 22nd day of August, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 22nd August, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "