The ITAT Chandigarh condoned delay in filing appeal where the delay arose due to the assessee’s counsel, but imposed a cost of ₹20,000 while restoring the matter for fresh adjudication.
![Representing Counsel Fails to File Income Tax Appeal on Time: ITAT Condoned Delay Subject to ₹20k Costs [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/29/2134940-itat-counsil-fails.webp)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, condoned delay in filing an appeal in a case where the delay was due to the assessee’s counsel.The assessee, Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in manufacturing and sale of dairy products. Aggrieved by the additions made during assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…
To read the article, get a premium account.
Taxscan Premium
Why should you subscribe?
- Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
- Receive Daily newsletters
- Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
- Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
- Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
Already Subscribed? Login Now
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, condoned delay in filing an appeal in a case where the delay was due to the assessee’s counsel.
The assessee, Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in manufacturing and sale of dairy products. Aggrieved by the additions made during assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which came to be dismissed. The assessee thereafter approached the Tribunal with a delay of 177 days.
The delay was attributed to the counsel, who failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time.The assessee approached the Tribunal seeking condonation of delay and an opportunity to contest the matter.
The Revenue, however, opposed the condonation, pointing out that the delay was substantial and had not been satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal, comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), noted that the delay was not intentional and had occurred due to the lapse on the part of the counsel. It observed that the assessee should be given an opportunity to pursue the appeal.
At the same time, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to impose a cost while condoning the delay.
Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 177 days, subject to payment of ₹20,000 to the Poor Patients Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh.
The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
M/s Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT Circle-1 , 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 459 , ITA Nos.1549 & 1550/Chandi/2025 , 22 April 2026 , Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) – Ld. AR , Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
M/s Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT Circle-1
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 459Case Number : ITA Nos.1549 & 1550/Chandi/2025Date of Judgement : 22 April 2026Coram : HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWALCounsel of Appellant : Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARCounsel Of Respondent : Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
aniltikotekar4sme.com 