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 (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 स.ं /ITA No.488/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Narendra Kumar Bhojwani C/o. Bhojwani Medical Stores, Hatri Bazar, Sadar Ward, Bhatapara-493 118 (C.G.)

PAN: ADEPB7523J .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA Revenue by : Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 15.04.2024 for the assessment year 2010-11 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, it has been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the appeal is time barred by 431 days. However, explaining the reasons for the said delay, the Ld. Counsel has filed condonation application as well as affidavit, dated 14.08.2025 wherein it is stated as follows:

Further, the Ld. Counsel contended that in Form 35, there is specific column on the personal information mentioning “whether notices /communication may be sent on email?” and the assessee has given reply as “No” which means there is an option given to the assessee for receiving of the notice/communication through email or not. In this case, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was sent by the department through registered email id but since the assessee has opted as “No”, therefore, there was no checking of such mail and therefore consequent non receipt of the said order resulting in the impugned delay. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee cannot be held at fault as Form 35 itself provides such an option to the assessee to choose the mode of receiving notices/communications.

3. The Ld. Sr. DR in this regard submitted that the department is in the process of amending this provision in Form 35.

4. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein on the ground of limitation, I am of the considered view that such delay has been caused due to technical issue arising from Form-35 itself and it cannot be attributed for any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee since there was no receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by the assessee physically while the assessee has already opted as “No” as observed herein before and for that reason, the said 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.

5. 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