Ashok Seth vs ACIT

'1. That on the facts and in law, the impugned appellate order dated 27.06.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limine on the ground of limitation, without appreciating that the Appellant had shown sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act warranting condonation of delay, and thereby failed to advance the cause of substantial justice, rendering the impugned appellate order unlawful and liable to be quashed.

2.

That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating the "sufficient cause" that the Appellant had filed the appeal within time on 09.04.2015 at the ASK counter of Circle 61(1), Delhi, meant to be transmitted to the office of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, constituting bona fide and reasonable cause, fully satisfying the requirement of "sufficient cause" under Section 249(3) of the Act.

3.

That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 249(3) is required to be construed liberally in favour of advancing justice, and that technicalities of limitation ought not to defeat adjudication on merits vide of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167ITR 471 (SC).

4.

That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing the impugned appellate order in a wholly arbitrary, perverse, and mechanical manner by erroneously attributing to the Appellant a plea of condonation of delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic vide para 4.1 of the impugned order, when no such plea was ever raised by the Appellant; thereby rendering the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) patently misconceived due to admitted non-application of mind, and the impugned order itself liable to be quashed as having been passed without due appreciation of the record.

5.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the settled position of law that length of delay is immaterial so long as the cause explained is bona fide, and further erred in holding that the Appellant did not demonstrate reasons "for each day's delay", contrary to the settled principles of law laid down inter alia vide Moot Chandra v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878.

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that denial of condonation has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice, since the additions made under Sections 14A and 244A were themselves ex facie unsustainable in law, and identical disallowances for earlier years had already been deleted by this Hon'ble IT AT in the Appellant's own case.

7.

That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the binding decision of the coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the favour of the Appellant for AYS 2009-10 and 2010-11 vide ITA Nos. 554 and 5298/Del/2013, wherein the facts are pari materia to the present case.

8.

That the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned orders erred in law in not following the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasaotni Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 2 321 (SC) as the material facts of the Appellant have not changed i.e. all direct expenses attributable to earning exempt income has been met out of personal drawings and there is no finding to the contrary based on any cogent material or evidence.

9.

That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have failed to adhere to the requirements of judicial discipline vide Union of India v. Kanilakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 711, by overlooking the decision and findings therein of the above mentioned coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal, rendering the impugned disallowance untenable in law and liable to be quashed.

10.

That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in making/confirming the impugned disallowance of Rs. 6,02,705/- as the same is based purely on guesswork sans any material evidence in support thereof, rendering the same unsustainable in law vide Dhakesivari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT1955 AIR 65."

1.

That I am the Appellant in the captioned appeal filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal against the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") and dismissal of subsequent appeal for want of prosecution by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2.

That the assessment order dated 28.02.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act was served on 11.03.2015.

3.

That being aggrieved, I preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and engaged the professional services of a Chartered Accountant to file the memorandum of appeal in prescribed Form No. 35, on my behalf.

4.

That the office assistant of the Chartered Accountant inadvertently submitted the appeal documents at the ASK Counter in Circle 61(1), New Delhi on 09.04.2015, instead of the office of CIT(A)-20, Delhi.

5.

That the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit under the Act however, due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake, it was filed before the wrong authority.

6.

That upon discovering the mistake, the Chartered Accountant approached the office of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, Delhi and requested acceptance of appeal documents inadvertently filed before the Assessing Officer. However, the staff of the said office declined to accept the same manually and advised filing the appeal electronically on the Income Tax filing portal.

7.

That in compliance with the said advice, the e-appeal was thereafter filed on the ITBA Portal on 25.01.2020.

8.

That the delay in filing the appeal is solely on account of a bona fide and reasonable cause, as the appeal had already been filed within the limitation period, albeit before an incorrect authority.

9.

That during the appellate proceedings, notices under Section 250 of the Act were issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, and the reasons for delay (request for condonation) were duly explained vide submission dated 19.03.2021.

10.

That the Ld. CIT(A), however, vide order dated 27.06.2025, dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay occurred purely due to bonafide reasons cited hereinabove.

11.

That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to a bona fide mistake and circumstances beyond my control.

12.

That I respectfully pray that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of justice.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, am the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly declare and affirm that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this 23rd day of March 2026.

DEPONENT

ATTESTED

NOTARY PUBLIC, DELHI

24 MAR 2026

"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."