Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Rekha Nagar,Haryana vs Jcit (Osd), New Delhi on 29 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH, 'B': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITANo.2650,2651,2652,2653,2654,2655,2656,2657,
2658,2659/Del/2025
[Assessment Year: 2011-12,2012-13,2013-14,2014-15,2015-16,2016-
17,2017-18,2018-19,2019-20 &2020-21]
Rekha Nagar Vs. JCIT (OSD)
H.No.453, Sector-17 Central Circle - 27
Faridabad New Delhi
Haryana
PAN No.AJHPN3284B
Appellant Respondent
ITANo.2749, 2795 & 2796/Del/2025
[Assessment Year: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2019-20]
Rekha Nagar Vs. DCIT
H.No.453, Sector-17 Central Circle - 27
Faridabad New Delhi
Haryana
PAN No.AJHPN3284B
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by Ms. Monika Ghai, Advocate
Sh. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate
Respondent by Sh. Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT (V/C)
Date of Hearing 23.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2026
ORDER
PER BENCH ITA No.2650 to 2659/Del/2025 for the A.Ys 2011-12 to 2020-21:
All these appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-31 for the A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2020-21 arising out of assessment orders passed u/s.153A of the Act.
2. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions/ disallowances made by the AO by dismissing the appeals of the assessee, on various legal grounds as the Assessment order is bad in law and also grounds on merits of the additions/ disallowance made.
3. Ld. CIT(DR) sought adjournment in all these appeals. We observed from record that some of the appeals of the assessee were listed for hearing on 14.10.2025. On 14.10.2025 the Ld. CIT(DR) requested for adjournment and accepting the request of the Ld. CIT(DR) these appeals were adjourned to 15.10.2025. On 15.10.2025 the Ld. CIT(DR) requested for adjournment which request was accepted and the appeals were listed for hearing on 06.11.2025. On 06.11.2025 at the request of the assessee the appeals were adjourned to 08.01.2026. Meanwhile the assessee moved an application for consolidation of appeals fixed in various Page | 2 benches and considering the request of the assessee, on 21.11.2025 all the appeals were consolidated and listed for hearing on 13.01.2026 in "B" Bench. On 13.01.2026 the Ld. CIT(DR) sought an adjournment on the ground that special counsel is required to be appointed in these appeals as the assessee has raised additional grounds. Accepting the request of the assessee the Tribunal had granted adjournment and listed all these appeals for hearing on 07.04.2026 by giving opportunity to the revenue to ensure appointment of special counsel by the next date of hearing. It was made clear on that day that no further opportunity will be allowed for the same purpose. When the appeals came up for hearing on 07.04.2026 similar request was made by the Ld. CIT(DR). Though it was made clear on 13.01.2016 that no further opportunity will be given, taking lenient view the appeals were adjourned to 23.04.2026 giving one last opportunity to the Revenue accepting the request. However, again when the appeals were called for hearing on 23.04.2026 similar request was made by the Ld. CIT(DR) who represented virtually.
4. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that in all these appeals the grounds taken by the assessee on merits where the AO made various additions/ disallowances, were not disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) disposed off only two legal grounds raised by the assessee i.e. in respect of the Page | 3 ground that no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating materials and the approval obtained u/s.153D of the Act is bad in law. Ld. Counsel submitted that on the grounds raised by the assessee on merits i.e. additions made in the assessments, no finding was rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds on merits were not disposed off.
5. In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we have perused the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and also the grounds raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of Form-35 and the grounds raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), we observed that the assessee in all these appeals raised several grounds of appeals that are technical as well as grounds on merits of additions/ disallowances made by the AO. However, on careful perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order we observed that even though the Ld. CIT(A) extracted the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and also written submissions of the assessee in his order, however, while disposing of the appeals the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated only two technical grounds and sustained the additions holding that the additions were made based on seized materials and the approval obtained by the AO u/s.153D is a valid approval.
6. It is observed that the appeals of the assessee were mainly disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that, inspite of several opportunities the assessee did not file submissions, did not choose to comply with the notices and Page | 4 therefore, decided the appeals exparte referring to the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 481). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the main plank of arguments of the assessee is that additions were made de- horse the seized material and no addition can be made, but this ground of appeal was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) holding that AO made additions based on seized materials without examining the contentions of the Assessee with reference to additions made nor based on any remand / factual report from AO. One other ground which was disposed off by the Ld.CIT(A) is the challenge to the validity of approval granted u/s.153D of the Act. None of the grounds of the assesse which were raised against merits of additions/ disallowances made while completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, were dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is totally silent on the merits of additions/ disallowances made by the AO.
7. On careful perusal of the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) which were extracted in the order, we further observed that even though the main plank of the arguments of the assessee is that the additions were made de-horse the seized materials, on without prejudice and alternatively the assessee contended that additions are not sustainable on merits for the reason explained therein. However, the alternate contentions of the assessee on merits were never disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A). The order passed Page | 5 by the Ld. CIT(A) is very cryptic on merits even assuming that there is a finding by the Ld. CIT(A).
8. In the above circumstances, this bench is of the view that all these appeals have to be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the grounds raised by the assessee on merits since no finding was rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) on the additions/ disallowances made by the AO. In these circumstances this bench is of the view that accepting the request of the Revenue for adjournment of appeals for appointing Special Counsel to represent the revenue in these appeals would serve no purpose for the reason that no finding is rendered on merits by the Ld. CIT(A), rather the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is totally silent on the merits of additions/ disallowances made by AO while completing the assessment and all these appeals have to go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
9. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in all these appeals and restore all these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall decide all the grounds raised by the assessee i.e., technical as well as grounds on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Page | 6 ITA No.2749, 2795 & 2796/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2019-20
10. Coming to the above appeals it is noticed that all these appeals were filed by the assessee in sustaining the penalties levied u/s.271A and 221 of the Act. The appeals in ITA Nos.2749 and 2795/Del/2025 for the A.Y.2014-15 and 2015-16 filed by the assessee are delayed by 399 and 393 days respectively. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit explaining the reasons for delay as under :-
That the penalty order u/s.271 was passed by the Ld. AO on 21.09.2022 in the case of Smt. Rekha Nagar for AY 2015-16.
That the applicant's case, for the period spanning AY 2010-11 to AY 2020-21, was involved in prolonged and extensive litigation before the income-tax authorities, including the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein multiple assessment years were taken up for scrutiny and consequential appellate proceedings were initiated.
That during the course of preparing the voluminous appeals for the various assessment years, the Authorized Representative of the applicant was deeply involved in compiling extensive documents, drafting detailed submissions, and coordinating the preparation of the appeal for the block period in question. That the entire exercise of preparing a batch of appeals relating to multiple assessment years was highly time-consuming and required detailed deliberations, study of assessment orders, collection of documentary evidence, and extensive legal submissions.
Page | 7 REASONS FOR DELAY:
That in the midst of this extensive exercise of preparing appeals for several years, the penalty orders passed for certain years, including AY 2015-16 under section 271A, inadvertently escaped the immediate attention of the Authorized Representative handling the matter.
That it was only while finalizing and reviewing the documents for the appeals in the other connected years that it came to the notice of the applicant and his representative that a penalty order had already been passed for several years inclusive of AY 2015-16, and no appeal against the same had been filed within the prescribed time.
That this lapse was purely unintentional, bonafide, and without any malafide intention or negligence. It happened solely due to the circumstances that a huge bunch of appeals relating to several years was under simultaneous preparation and filing, which inadvertently led to an oversight in respect of the penalty order passed for AY 2015-16, LEGAL POSITION IN SUPPORT OF CONDONATION:
It is respectfully submitted that it is a settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Courts in various judgments, that a liberal and justice-oriented approach is to be adopted while considering condonation of delay, particularly when sufficient cause is shown and the delay is neither deliberate nor due to negligence. Reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). where it was held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach should be taken while considering delay condonation applications.
The Hon'ble Courts have consistently held that unless it is established that the delay was deliberate, Page | 8 malafide, or arising out of gross negligence, the delay should be condoned to advance the cause of substantial justice.
PRAYER:
In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances and in light of the legal position enumerated above, the applicant most humbly submits that the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred solely due to bonafide circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 399 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order passed under section 271A for AY 2015-16 and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice and equity."
11. On perusal of the reasons given by the assessee for filing the appeals with the delay of 399 and 393 days before the Tribunal we find Assessee has sufficient cause for filing the appeals with delay. Thus, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits.
12. Coming to merits of the appeals, since the Ld. CIT(A) disposed off all these appeals without considering the submissions of the assessee and also since outcome of the appeals in quantum proceedings has bearing on these appeals, all these penalty appeals are also restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing Page | 9 opportunity to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
13. In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[RENU JAUHRI] [C.N. PRASAD]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29.04.2026
NEHA , Sr.P.S.*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. PCIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar,
ITAT, New Delhi
Page | 10