O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam dated 08.01.2026 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is a salaried individual, who received an annual salary of Rs.23,31,120/- from his employer, i.e. Indiaideas.com Limited. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2018-19 showing taxable income at Rs.97,010/-. The assessee inadvertently missed to claim loss from house property of Rs.2,00,000/- arising on account of housing interest loan, which he previously disclosed to his employer and which was duly taken into account in Form 16 issued by his employer. The assessee missed to claim eligible exemption on account of conveyance allowance of Rs.19,200/-, leave travel allowance of Rs.51,308/-, medical reimbursement of Rs.15,000/- and deduction of tax on employment of Rs.2,400/-. Due to the above mistake, Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) raised a tax demand of Rs.1,02,344/- which included interest of Rs.8,890/- and Rs.4,490/- under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.

3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The appeal is time-barred by 2157 days before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee simply for non filing of condonation petition within the stipulated period of time saying that the delay has been caused by his ignorance, lack of awareness or knowledge about the law and the contention of assessee is not unacceptable.

Ignornance of law cannot be considered as a good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal. The maxim ‘Ignorantia juris non-excusat’, or ‘ignorance of law is no excuse’. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not touched these issues on merit except mentioning the factum of appeal being time-barred.

4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated before the Bench that filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was beyond his control and the assessee was not negligent and there was no inaction on his part in filing the appeal in time. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without touching the issues on merits except mentioning the factum of appeal being time-barred. He prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and pleaded before the Bench to confirm the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) as the assessee did not furnish any condonation petition in support of delay in filing the appeal as well as documentary details in support of his claim.

6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay of 2157 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. I find from the record that the appellant had no intention to evade tax or misrepresent income. The omission occurred due to oversight during the filing process. The appellant has substantial evidence in support of the claim of exemption. Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2019 was delivered to the email of assessee on 23.01.2019 as per Rule 127 of the ITAT Rules. Due to oversight of e-mail and physically non-service of the assessment order, the delay was occurred, therefore, there is no wilful negligent or latches on the part of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 2157 days. Therefore, I condone the delay. It is also evident that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal ex-parte being time-barred.