, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.233/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 Narendra Kumar Mishra, ITO-3(1)

H-35 Laxmi Parisar, E-8, Bhopal /

बनाम Extention Arera Colony, Vs.

Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: ABJPM5708P Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 12.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 547 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/

affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:

3. The averments made by assessee in Para 2 & 3 of above application, which are self-explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed. In those averments, it is submission of assessee that he is a differently-abled person and that he had to manage medical exigences of himself and his family members which has led to the delay. Ld. AR emphasized that the delay has occurred due to onerous circumstances and it is not attributable to assessee’s lethargy, negligence or malafide intention. He prayed to condone delay. The Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:

(i) The assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he was a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of Telecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f. 01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector enterprise owned by Central Govt. During previous year 2019-20 relevant to AY 2020-21, he retired from BSNL and received a sum of Rs. 12,85,132/- on account of ‘leave encashment’ and Rs. 15,54,304/- as ‘ex-gratia under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 (VRS)’. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) declaring a total income of Rs. 26,01,978/- on 26.12.2020. In the original return so filed, the assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 7,75,890/- u/s 10(10AA) in respect of leave encashment and exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 10(10C) in respect of ex-gratia under VRS [the AO has mentioned Rs. 5,16,000/- in assessment-order which according to Ld. AR consists of Rs. 5,00,000/- exemption u/s 10(10C) for ex-gratia under VRS (+) Rs. 16,000/- for exempted allowances].

(ii) Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income u/s 139(4)

declari