IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4644/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17)

Ashish Jian, ITO, 79, Basement Bhera Enclave, Ward-67(1), Pashchim Vihar, Vs. Delhi.

New Delhi-110085, PAN-AFIPJ3833M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. and Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv.

Department by Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10296691 dated 24.06.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. This appeal was filed delayed by 332 by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the assessee reaffirming the facts stated in the application are filed. It is stated that the order of Learned CIT(A) was served on e-filing portal and the counsel who pursued the appeal has not informed about the passing of order of ld. CIT(A). when the assessee got the notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the fact that appellate order has already come to the knowledge of the assessee It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely due to the above unavoidable circumstances. It is thus requested that delay being bonafide, deserves to be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication.

3. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 332 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapses of the litigant concerned, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

5. In grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 3, assessee has challenged the reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act by alleging that the notice is issued u/s148 after obtaining approval from the authority which was not competent to grant approval u/s 151 of the Act.

6. Heard both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Form the perusal of the fresh notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after passing the order u/s 148A(d) on 30.06.2022, it is observed that the same were issued after obtaining the approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Delhi on 30.06.2022.

7. Section 148 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions of section 148 of the Act applicable till 31.03.2021 could be issued only upto 31.03.2021. This issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC). Under the amended provisions for reopening the assessment, the AO has issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 17.05.2022 and on 30.06.2022 order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed followed by the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the same date, i.e. on 30.06.2022. This notice dated 30.06.2022 u/s 148 of the Act, was issued after obtaining approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Delhi which is contrary to the provisions of sectio