आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपरु म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Hearing)

(cid:302)ी पाथ (cid:91) सारथी चौधर(cid:547), Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.137/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahendra Kumar Gupta HUF

404, Suraj Villa, 9/2, New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 PAN: AAGHM8528M .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.138/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mahendra Kumar Gupta

404, Suraj Villa, 9/2, New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 PAN: ADCPG7886K .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Mrs. Shelly Maheshwari, CA Shri Ashish Goyal, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 17.04.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeals preferred by the assessees emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 07.03.2024 and 22.01.2024 for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the appeals are time barred by 297 and 359 days for A.Y.2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively. Elaborating the reasons leading to the said delay, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the main person of the HUF viz. Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta at the relevant point of time was in judicial custody, due to which, the delay has occurred. In so far the delay is concerned, it would be relevant to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay.

3. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken in condoning the delay when limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs the substantial justice. In other words, the objective of the court should be to deliver substantial justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned.

4. That as per the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee delay has caused due to circumstances in which the assessee was put into at the relevant point of time. The Ld