Lalit Aggarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 09.12.2025, which declined to admit the assessee’s appeal due to a delay of 1,208 days. The appeal arose from a penalty order dated 12.01.2022 passed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.
The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment under Sections 147/144 on 07.12.2019 and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B for failure to get the accounts audited as required under Section 44AB. A penalty of ₹1.50 lakh was imposed on the ground that the assessee’s turnover exceeded the prescribed threshold under Section 44AB.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that serious matrimonial disputes, a pending divorce petition before the Family Court, and other legal proceedings caused severe mental distress, preventing timely filing of the appeal. The assessee also relied on the Supreme Court’s suo motu orders extending limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic and contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate.
The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had extended the limitation period up to 31.05.2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2022, and therefore the delay attributable to the COVID-19 period was liable to be excluded. For the remaining period, the Tribunal found merit in the submission that the assessee was preoccupied with family disputes and was mentally disturbed. It also noted that no explanation for the delay had been placed before the CIT(A).
In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to consider the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in light of the Tribunal’s observations and to admit the appeal in accordance with law if satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary particulars relating to the delay before the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10499692 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of penalty order dated 12.01.2022 passed u/s 271B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 147/144 dated 07.12.2019 and proceedings u/s 271B of the Act for levy of penalty for not get the accounts audited in accordance with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act were initiated. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2022, the AO levied the penalty of INR 1.50 Lakhs by holding that the assessee has not get his account audited though he has the turnover exceeding the maximum threshold limits provided u/s 44AB of the Act.
3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) however, the appeal was filed delay by 1208 days and no reasons were stated for the delay therefore, the appeal of the assessee was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A).
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.
5. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material on record. Before us, it was the claim of the assessee that there were serious disputes between the assessee and his wife and divorce petition was pending before the Family Court and certain other cases were going on due to which the assessee was mentally disturbed and could not file the appeal within the stipulated time period. In support of the legal cases pending in the case of the assessee is filed before us. It was further stated that due to COVID-19 pandemic and in terms of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto petition, the grace period allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court should also be excluded. As per the assessee delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and the assessee is having sufficient and reasonable cause for delay and thus proved the Bonafide and therefore it was the prayed that the delay may please be condoned and appeal be heard on merits.
6. After careful consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order in Suo Moto Writ Petition in SMW(C) No. 03/2022 has extended the period of limitation falling under Covid-19 period, till 31.05.2022 due to Covid pandemic, therefore, to this extent the delay is not attributable to the assessee and should be excluded. For the remaining period, we find force in the submissions of Ld.AR that the assessee was preoccupied in personal family disputes and was mentally was not stable and was very disturbed therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time period. It is further observed that no explanation was tendered before the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, we remand this issue back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with the directions to consider the application of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in the light of aforesaid discussion and admit the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law, if ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons stated by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary details in respect to the delay occurred in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). With these directions, all the Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026.
