आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद(cid:671)ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद(cid:671)ी

(cid:373)ी िवकास अव(cid:830)थी, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं

मनीष अ(cid:356)वाल, लेखाकार सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 99/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1045/Del/2025, A.Y 2018-19)

&

ITA No. 1045/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19 Mam Chand Singh, L 85, II Floor, Malviya Nagar, Delhi 110017 PAN: APOPS-1590-Q ...... आवेदक/Applicant/Appellant बनाम Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 67(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 ..... (cid:7079)ितवादी/Respondent आवेदक/Applicant : S/Shri Arun Yadav & Shashank Shekhar Shukla, Advocates (cid:366)ितवादी(cid:554)ारा Respondent by : Shri Salil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR /

सुनवाई क(cid:7409) ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 28/02/2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 28/02/2025 आदशे /ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

The assessee has filed an application for stay of outstanding demand for assessment year 2018-19.

2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 132 days. An application for condonation of delay was also filed citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. He submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits. The CIT(A) at threshold dismissed the appeal without even looking at merits. The ld. Counsel prayed that the assessee being individual, agriculturist will suffer irreparable loss if recovery of outstanding demand for impugned assessment year is not stayed.

3. During the course of hearing of Stay Application it is observe that the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer invoking provision of section 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appeal filed against ex-

parte assessment order is dismissed in limine by the CIT(A).

4. With the assent of both sides, appeal is taken up for hearing along with Stay Application.

ITA No. 1045/Del/2025

5. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 21.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assesee did not file return of income in response to the said notice. Further, the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings. Thus, the AO invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.52,81,642/-.

6. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order. The appeal was time barred by 132 days. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing appeal. The primary reason given for non appearance of assessee in assessment proceedings and delay in filing of First Appeal is, the death of Tax Consultant of assessee during second wave of Covid-19 in the year 2021. The CIT(A) rejected the cause given by assessee/appellant for filing and dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.

7.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted w