Chandra Goswami v. Income Tax Officer, Delhi, ITA No.3230/DEL/2024/ ITAT Delhi
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi recently ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The case pertained to a retired professor who had received arrears of pension and inadvertently included them twice in the taxable income, leading to an excessive tax liability.
Background of the Case
The assessee, a retired professor from Dayal Singh College, University of Delhi, received arrears of pension amounting to ₹8,47,206 during the financial year 2019-20. The original return of income, filed on 17.11.2020, declared total income of ₹32,86,460. However, upon realizing the mistake of double addition of arrears, the assessee filed a revised return on 13.02.2021, declaring total income of ₹8,43,060 and claiming a refund of ₹130.
Attempt to Seek Rectification and Revision
The assessee initially sought rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the request was denied. Subsequently, a revision petition under Section 264 was filed before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which was also rejected. After exhausting these alternate remedies, the assessee finally filed an appeal before the CIT(A), albeit with a delay of approximately two years.
CIT(A)’s Rejection of Appeal
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, refusing to condone the delay. The primary reason cited was the lack of “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal. The department argued that the delay was unjustified and that the assessee had ample time to approach the appellate authority earlier.
ITAT Delhi’s Ruling
Upon hearing both parties, the ITAT Delhi examined the facts and observed that the delay was not intentional. The assessee was genuinely exploring alternate remedies before finally approaching the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the acceptance of a delay condonation request should be the norm, while rejection should be an exception.
Key Judicial Precedents Considered
The ITAT relied on the following landmark Supreme Court judgments:
- Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) – This case established that a liberal approach should be taken when dealing with condonation of delay applications to ensure that meritorious cases are not dismissed on technical grounds.
- Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others (2002 AIR 1201 SC) – The Supreme Court emphasized that “sufficient cause” should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.
Conclusion and Final Order
Considering the circumstances and judicial precedents, the ITAT Delhi set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to hear the matter and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present submissions in accordance with the law.
Implications of the ITAT Delhi Order
This ruling underscores the importance of a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” when assessing condonation of delay petitions. Taxpayers who face similar issues can take relief from this judgment, as it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
Final Verdict: The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored it to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.