KAILASH AGRAWAL,BARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARGARH

Shri Subham B Mehta, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the assessee.

There was a delay of 12 days in filing of the appeal before the ld CIT(A) in the quantum appeal and there was a delay of 13 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A) against the penalty order.

Ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee has sought adjournment on the ground that the assessee’s wife has undergone cardiac surgery in the month of October, 2024 and the assessee has sustained leg injury. As the issues in these appeals are not very complex, the adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected and the appeals are being disposed off.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is 69 years old person and he is staying in village area at Bhatli, Bargarh. After receiving assessment order, the assessee had to trace a counsel to file the appeals. Ld counsel for the assessee was available at Raipur which is more than 240 kms from his native place. It was the submission that being an aged person, travelling was also difficult. It was the submission that the delay in P a g e 2 | 4 & 431/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) may be condoned and the issues be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the ld Ld CIT(A) has rejected the appeals of the assessee in limine and consequently, same are not appealable orders.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of ld CIT(A) show that the appeal orders have been passed u/s.250 of the Act. An order u/s.250 of the Act is an appealable order before the Tribunal. In fact, non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) is an appealable order insofar as the ld CIT(A) can pass an order of appeal only u/s 250 of the Act. This being so, the arguments of ld Sr DR is unsustainable.

Coming to the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A), we observe that the reasons are found to be plausible. In any case, the delay is only minimal. When technicality is pitted against substantial justice, technicalities are always step down and substantial justice should prevail. This being so, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeals before the ld CIT(A) is condoned and the issues in the appeals on merits are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.