VIKAS TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 21.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2020-21.

Shri V. Raj Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on account of limitation. There was delay of 44 days in filing of appeal. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by medical records. The CIT(A) without appreciating the reasons explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal dismissed appeal of the assessee. He submitted that the delay (AY 2020-21) was caused on account of medical exigencies. The assessee in support of his contention had furnished MRI report and other medical reports.

Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department strongly defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee on ground of limitation taking pedantic approach.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that ‘acceptance of reason explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception’. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view, the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice. 5.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

The reason explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) appears to be bonafide. Hence, the same is accepted and the delay in filing of appeal is condoned.

In light of the facts of the instant case and decisions referred above the impugned order is set aside and appeal is restored to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 30th day of July, 2025.