Kanhaiya Lal Datwani vs ITO

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi 42 [CIT(A) in short], dated 31.01.2026 in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10388780 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) dated 12.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

In Ground of appeal No 3, assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee as it was filed delayed by 119 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation petition filed before the ld. CIT(A) was that the assessee was NRI for past 28 years and having no taxable income in India and when he gained the knowledge about the passing of the assessment order, he took the legal advice and filed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the appeal was filed delayed before the ld. CIT(A) by 119 days. The reasons being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the same facts and requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and further, requested to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits.

Per contra, Ld. Sr DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that the delay was of 119 days for which the assessee has failed to give any reasonable explanation and therefore, prayed the order of ld. CIT(A) should be confirmed.

After hearing both the parties and considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee has been able to make out a case that he has reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as he is NRI for past 28 years and had no taxable income in India. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. Therefore, to subserve the principal of natural justice and respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of AO to pass the order denovo afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, Ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have allowed ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee, remaining grounds of appeal become academic.

In the result, the appeal filed by Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.