AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant batch of fifteen appeals pertains to the single assessees herein namely, Akash Khari. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
| Sl. No. | ITA Nos. | A.Y. | Appellant | Respondent | Order passed against | Proceedings u/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | 7553 & 7554/Del/2025 | 2015-16 & 2016-17 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 19.09.2025 | 271(1)(b) |
| 3-7 | 7555, 7556 & 7557, 7561 & 7566/Del/2025 | 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20 & 2021-22 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 19.09.2025 | 272A(1)(d) |
| 8-9 | 7558 & 7562/Del/2025 | 2020-21 & 2021-22 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 26.09.2025 | 143(3)/153C |
| 10-11 | 7559 & 7563/Del/2025 | 2020-21 & 2021-22 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 26.09.2025 | 270A |
| 12-13 | 7560 & 7567/Del/2025 | 2020-21 & 2021-22 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 26.09.2025 | 271A |
| 14 | 7564/Del/2025 | 2021-22 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 26.09.2025 | 271AAD |
| 15 | 7565/Del/2025 | 2021-22 | Akash Khari | DCIT | CIT(A)-26, New Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 26.09.2025 | 271AAC(1) |
Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-26, Delhi alongwith request to condone the delay of 403 days (in ITA Nos. 7553, 7554, 7555, 7556, 7557, 7561 & 7566/Del/2025), 461 days (in ITA No. 7558 & 7562/Del/2025), 271 days in ITA No. 7559/Del/2025), 273 days (in ITA No. 7559 & 7560/Del/2025), 272 days (in ITA No. 7563, 7564, 7565 & 7567/Del/2025). The Id. CIT(A) however was not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed in limine.
We have noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
It is an admitted fact that the assessment order subject matter of appeal ITA Nos. 7558 & 7562/Del/2025, was best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee failed to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The appeals against the quantum proceedings as well as against penalty proceedings have been dismissed in limine as the ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 403 days (in ITA Nos. 7553, 7554, 7555, 7556, 7557, 7561& 7566/Del/2025), 461 days (in ITA No. 7558 & 7562/Del/2025), 271 days in ITA No. 7559/Del/2025), 273 days (in ITA No. 7559 & 7560/Del/2025), 272 days (in ITA No. 7563, 7564, 7565 & 7567/Del/2025) on the ground that the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory.
We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which find mentions in para 3 (ITA No. 7553/Del/2025), as under:
"3.The impugned order was passed on 15.05.2024 by the AO and the due date for filling the present appeal as per sec 249(2) of IT Act expires on 14.06.2024. But the above appeal is filling today on 22.07.2025 which is delayed by 403 days. The reason for such delay was that the appellant had been working as a petty worker for the person namely Shri Sourabh Gupta who manipulated the involvement of appellant in the activities of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. The above Sourabh Gupta managed all types of compliances under the Income Tax Act through the counsel appointed by him. The appellant had no interaction with above counsel and had remained under the impression that the appeal against the orders passed the Ld. AO are being filed within the time limit u/s 249(2) of IT Act. The appellant came to be aware of non-filing of appeal when the recovery notice from TRO, Central-2, Delhi was received on 08.07.2025. The appellant consulted the new counsel CA Suresh K Gupta who verified from e-proceeding portal i.e. no appeals against the orders have been filed. The appellant immediately instructed the above new Counsel to file the present appeals with application of condonation. Affidavit of the appellant confirming the above facts is enclosed herewith and it is prayed that delay in filling the appeals is beyond the reasonable control of appellant and therefore, the delay involved be kindly condoned."
It is settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee to the Id. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. Dismissal of the appeal in limine against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, in our opinion has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order against the quantum proceeding is set aside. It is noted that the assessment order was also passed u/s 144 without effective representation by the assessee, hence, we deem it expedient to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same after giving effective opportunities of hearing. Since the appellate order against the quantum proceedings has been set aside, the subsequent penalty proceedings also stands set aside. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 7553 to 7567/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose.