ITAT Delhi Condoned 169-Day Delay for CA’s Lapse, Remands Ex-Parte Dismissed Case for Fresh Hearing

A company filed an appeal in ITAT Delhi Bench ‘B’ challenging an assessment order passed by Ld. CIT (A), arguing they did not give them a proper opportunity to be heard, and also some of the grounds raised in the appeal were not decided on merit by the CIT(A). This appeal was filed 169 days late from the statutory deadline; hence, it also prayed for condonation of the delay. ITAT has allowed the condonation of delay, as it was not intentional, and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh consideration.

The present appeal has been filed by a company named Shivam Jewelmart Private Limited (appellant) against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) (respondent) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi, before Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member, and Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member. The tribunal announced its decision on September 25, 2025.

The company challenged an assessment order dated August 20, 2024, issued by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, 26 (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ for short). The order was related to the assessment year 2017-18. The present appeal has been filed 169 days late from the statutory deadline. However, the company claimed that the delay was not intentional and filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. The company explained that while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the email ID of the Chartered Accountant (CA) had been mentioned in Form No. 35; however, when the order was issued, the chartered accountant did not inform the company, and they only became aware of the order when it was downloaded from the e-filing portal. Thereafter, they immediately filed the appeal, which caused a delay of 169 days. Now, the company is praying to condone the delay by filing the present appeal.

When the tribunal analysed the case and heard both sides of the arguments, it cited a Supreme Court‘s earlier judgement titled Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), where the Supreme Court ruled that “delay, when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice.” Considering the Supreme Court ruling, the tribunal condoned the delay of 169 days and allowed the present appeal.

The present dispute arose because the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under Section 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on March 22, 2022. In this assessment, the AO made an addition under Section 69A r.w. Section 115BBE. This section deals with undisclosed income. However, the company did not consider this order as fair and legal, hence filed an appeal. before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), on August 20, 2024, dismissed the appeal. The company was still not satisfied, so it filed the present appeal in the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘B’.

In the present appeal, the company claimed the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving them the opportunity to be heard, which is a violation of natural justice principles. Additionally, some of the grounds raised in the appeal were not decided on merit by the CIT(A).

When the tribunal analysed the case, it concluded that the appeal was passed ex parte by the CIT(A), meaning the assessee was not heard at all, which is a violation of natural justice. Also, the CIT(A) did not examine all grounds of appeal on their merits. Therefore, in the final order, considering all the facts, the ITAT condoned the delay of 169 days and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and also directed them to properly listen to the company and decide the appeal afresh on its merits, according to law. Meaning, the appeal was partly allowed.