AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 15.09.2025.
The brief facts of the case are that an order u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short “Income Tax”) was came to be passed on 16.03.2022. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of more than 3 years and one months. The delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned by the CIT(A) and dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on delay latches on 15.09.2025. As against the order of the CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay, the delay in filing the Appeal has not been condoned and thus sought for condoning the delay and allowing the appeal.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 3 years and 1 month in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee in his application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A), canted as under:
“ I, Gulshan Grover, PAN AGBPG4348N, hereby submit this application requesting the condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The penalty order dated 16/03/2022 was passed by the Assessing Officer, WARD 58(3) Delhi, imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,58,310. Regrettably, due to a combination of factors, including lack of professional assistance at the time and inadequate understanding of the legal complexities involved, I was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The primary reason for the delay was my insufficient knowledge of the serious implications of the penalty order and the specific legal steps required for filing an appeal. Additionally, due to my limited understanding of the procedural nuances of tax law, I was not aware of the requirement to initiate the appeal process within the prescribed period. Furthermore, I was in the process of Page 3 of 8 AGBPG4348N- GULSHAN GROVER A.Y. 2010-11 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080739708(1) transitioning from one set of tax advisors to another, which contributed to a delay in recognizing the urgency of the situation. I have engaged one Tax consultant who is contesting my quantum appeal and he assured that once quantum appeal is settled in my favour the impact of penalty will be no more. This also contributed to a delay in recognizing the urgency of the situation. Moreover, during the period in question, there were difficulties in obtaining complete and accurate documentation from the previous tax consultants who handled my case. The delay in receiving the relevant documents further hindered my ability to act swiftly. It was only upon consulting with my current tax consultants that I fully understood the importance of filing the appeal and the specific provisions of the law that allow for condonation of delay under certain circumstances. I would also like to highlight that the delay was not a result of any intentional disregard for the law but was purely due to my lack of awareness and the procedural challenges faced during this period. I have always sought to comply with the Income Tax Act in good faith, and this delay is an unfortunate consequence of the confusion and lack of proper guidance at the relevant time.
However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.
It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona-fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. 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. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 3 years and one month in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by imposing the cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the Assessee in Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.