IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessment year : 2016-17 Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 14-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 01-01-2026

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17.

2. There is a delay of 156 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the office e-mail ID was not updated in the assessee’s profile in the income tax e-filing portal for which the assessee was not aware of the dismissal of the order passed. Subsequently when the assessee in the month of February, 2025 logged into the income tax portal, he came to know that the appeal for assessment year 2016-17 has been dismissed. Thereafter the assessee took necessary steps for filing of the appeal. Relying on various decisions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore, should be condoned.

3. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation application filed by the assessee.

4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of delay in filing of the appeal and considered the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit of the assessee.

5. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 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.

6. We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:

“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

8. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 06.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,97,440/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee has received accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchases of Rs.1,87,90,375/- during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17 from Shri Deepak Nanjyani. Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.07.2022 was issued and served on the assessee.

9. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the computation of income, financial statements, nature of business, relationship with Deepak Nanjyani and the details of