TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufficient cause for the delay and on merits since the assessee had a favourable case covered by various decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, the delay needed to be condoned to sub-serve the interest of justice. That if the delay is not condoned the assessee's meritorious matter would be thrown out and the cause of justice defeated. His contention was that as per the facts leading to delay the assessee fulfilled all the principles lay down by Judicial Authorities for condoning the delay. Reference was made to several decisions in this regard, which shall be referred to in the later part of the judgment. 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned. 4. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the contents of the application filed before me by the assessee along with the duly sworn affidavit explaining the reason for the delay in the filing of the present appeal before us by 476 days. The ld. CIT(A) had passed the order on 29.03.2024. The assessee was to fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 7. As is evident, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 9. As is evident from a bare perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndoned. 12. Since both the sides have placed their arguments on the principles so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as above, it is imperative to test the facts of the assessee's case on the principles noted above by us. 13. The application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay supported with a duly sworn affidavit bringing out the reasons for the delay reads as under :- I, Ram Dev Daiya S/o Chetan Ram aged about 65 years R/o.A-1/2015 Flats, Sector-6 Jeevan Ashray, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039 (PAN solemnly affirm on oath: AASPD4356J) do hereby 1. That I am a Senior citizen and retired from PSU- Insurance Company Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). 2. That Ld. JCIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram passed an order 29.03.2024, u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in my case. This appeal before CIT(Appeals) was preferred by me against the Intimation order dated 19.10.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21 issued by the Ld. CPC, without giving SCN. 3. That against the impugned order Ld. JCIT (Appeals)-1, Gurugram, I am in appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench. 4. The appeal is filed on 19.09.2025 (i.e. with a delay of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 22 cases. But, at the time of first hearing Hon'ble Bench advised me to file an application for condonation of delay, as the delay is inordinate. 14. Then, with immediate effect I filed a delay condone application on 12.12.2025. Thereafter, for hearing on 16.12.2025, I engaged a new counsel for arguments of the case. The new counsel advised me to file a detailed affidavit condonation of delay along with a revised application for condonation of delay. 15. That the calculation chart of period of delay is as follows :- Sr No. Period of Delay Days of Delay Cause of Delay 1 29.03.2024 to 20.06.2024 83 Days No Knowledge about adverse order. 2 21.06.2024 to 20.08.2024 60 Days Statutory time allowed. 3 21.08.2024 to 19.09.2025 394 Days Due to mistake of consultant. 16. That the Other Reasons :- (i). Assessee is a retired salaried, Senior Citizen. So, the demand of Rs. 3,15,998/ is very huge amount caused hardship. (ii). The demand raised without following the Natural Justice and the addition is without issue of Show Cause Notice. (iii). A large numbers of taxpayers got relief in iden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee became aware of the passing of the ld. CIT(A) order only when he checked his email after 60 days is a plausible explanation and no laxity can be attributed on the part of the assessee on this account. 16. A major cause for the delay as stated on oath is the fault of the consultant of the assessee, whom he had approached immediately, on becoming aware of the passing of the order, but who did not file an appeal for a considerable period of time and the assessee became aware of this fact only when he approached him, a year later to file his return of income. 17. What is clearly evident from the explanation of the assessee is that, the assessee was pro-active in pursing the remedy available in law, against the passing of ld. CIT(A) order, and there was no deliberate or conscious attempt by him to delay the filing of the appeal. 18. Even otherwise, it has been brought to our notice that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT. It was brought to our notice that the assessee had received retirement benefits during the year, being in the nature of leave encashment amounti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al OR State Govt in respect of so much of period of EL as does not exceed 10 months calculated on the basis of the average salary drawn by the employee during the period of 10 months immediately preceding his retirement. (Section 10(10AA) of the I-T Act, 1961." 22. As noted above, the issue related to denial of exemption under Section 10(10AA) amounting to Rs. 13,12,806/-. The assessee is a salaried individual who had returned leave encashment salary received on retirement amounting to Rs. 13,12,806/- and claimed exemption of the same u/s 10(10AA) of the Act. The same was however restricted to Rs. 3 lacs while processing the return of income of the assessee by the CPC in terms of the provisions of Section 10(10AA) of the Act. 23. I have noted above the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before me of various Co-ordinate Bench decisions of the ITAT, in as much as 22 cases, holding that the limit of exemption of leave encashment as per Section 10(10AA) of the Act applicable for the impugned year would be Rs. 25 lacs. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the list of the said decisions vide submission dated 25-11-2025 as under :- Sr No Name of the Appellant....