The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, has set a significant precedent by condoning an extraordinary delay of 1891 days in filing an income tax appeal, recognizing the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to legal and professional services. This ruling reaffirms that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when delays arise from circumstances beyond the appellant’s control.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Pratik Dixit, challenged an assessment order dated 18.11.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Etawah. The assessment was made ex parte, without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The appellant filed his first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 20.02.2025 - 1891 days after the assessment order was passed. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) on the ground of delay, without adjudicating the merits.
Key Facts
- Assessment order issued on 18.11.2019 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act
- Appellant’s e-filing account was registered with the email ID of his former Chartered Accountant (CA)
- The CA failed to forward any communication from the Income Tax Department to the appellant
- No physical notices were received by the appellant at his registered address
- Appellant became aware of the assessment order only upon initiation of proceedings
- The appellant submitted that he lacked digital literacy and was unaware of the need to monitor e-filing portals
- The delay of 1891 days was attributed to the CA’s negligence and the disruption caused by the pandemic
Procedural History
- 18.11.2019: Assessment order passed u/s 144 by the ITO
- 20.02.2025: First appeal filed before CIT(A) - 1891 days after the assessment order
- 12.01.2026: CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay under Section 249(3), without examining merits
- 27.03.2026: Appeal filed before ITAT Agra (ITA No. 54/Agr/2026)
Relief Sought
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, setting aside of the CIT(A)’s order dated 12.01.2026, and restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the 1891-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be condoned under Section 249(3) when the delay coincided with the period of pandemic-related judicial relief granted by the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel, Shri Prasoon Agarwal, FCA, argued that the delay was neither intentional nor due to laches. He submitted that the appellant relied entirely on his CA for digital communications, and the CA’s failure to forward notices or monitor the e-filing portal constituted a genuine and unforeseen impediment. He further relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 in In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation calculations for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. He contended that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring this binding directive.
For the Respondent
The Department, represented by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR, argued that the appellant had ample opportunity to monitor his e-filing account and that the CA’s negligence could not be attributed to the appellant. It was submitted that the delay was inexcusable and that condonation would set a dangerous precedent for taxpayers to neglect their statutory obligations.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal emphasized that Section 249(3) grants the CIT(A) discretionary power to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. It noted that the appellant’s explanation - that he was entirely dependent on a CA who failed to communicate official notices - was not merely a technical excuse but reflected a systemic failure in service delivery during a period of national crisis.
"We take judicial notice of the fact that the duration of delay caused in filing appeal before the first appellate authority overlaps the period of spread of global pandemic COVID-19."
The Tribunal further held that the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation computation, was binding on all quasi-judicial authorities, including the CIT(A). The CIT(A) failed to consider this directive, thereby committing a legal error.
The Tribunal reiterated the foundational principle that substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. It observed that denying the appellant a hearing on merits would violate the principles of natural justice and the very purpose of appellate remedies under the Act.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2026 of the CIT(A) was set aside. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pandemic-Related Delays Are Sufficient Cause
- Practitioners may now invoke the Supreme Court’s exclusion period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) as a standalone ground for condonation of delay in tax appeals, even if the delay exceeds the statutory period
- The burden shifts to the revenue department to prove that the delay was not pandemic-related or that the appellant acted with gross negligence
- Courts and tribunals must now explicitly consider pandemic-related disruptions when evaluating sufficient cause under Section 249(3)
CA Negligence May Not Be Attributed to Taxpayer
- Where a taxpayer has entrusted all communications to a professional CA and has no access to or control over the e-filing account, the CA’s failure to forward notices may constitute sufficient cause
- Taxpayers must be given an opportunity to explain systemic failures in third-party service delivery
- This ruling reinforces the need for the Department to ensure physical notice delivery where digital communication is unreliable
Procedural Fairness Trumps Technical Compliance
- The Tribunal reaffirmed that the purpose of appellate remedies is to ensure justice, not to penalize procedural lapses
- Tribunals must avoid mechanical dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds without examining the underlying circumstances
- This judgment provides a strong precedent for taxpayers seeking relief in cases involving digital exclusion, lack of awareness, or professional malpractice
