SAMEER HARESH SAINANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE2(1)(1), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on account of a negligible delay of 2 days without adjudicating the matter on merits, thereby denying the Appellant a fair opportunity to be heard. - 2–

The learned CIT(A) failed to provide a specific opportunity to the Appellant to explain the delay or file a formal condonation application before dismissing the appeal.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that technicalities should not be allowed to triumph over substantive justice, especially when the delay is a mere 48 hours and involves no mala fide intent.

Provisions of 270A (9) are not applicable as the deduction u/s 80GGC had been made under bonafide belief that the donation made complying with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowed.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”

It is relevant to note the fact that there was a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed to appeal of the Assessee as it was barred by limitation (2 days) without going into the merits of the case.

The Ld. AR for the Assessee, in view of the above application for condonation of delay, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that impugned order be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. It is further submitted that given an opportunity, due compliances will be made and all the details/clarifications/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

In the statement of fact dated 25.05.2026 filed by the assessee, it has been submitted that “the Assessee in this case is working as Senior - 3– Executive Position at M/s. Bennet Coleman & Co. where the appellant has to oversee multi-city operations and has to continuously travel from one place to another. Hence, with such high pressure work, he was not able to sign the appeal documents and hence there happened a delay of 2 days”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Versus Mst. Katiji and Others [167 ITR 471 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while examining the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal, observed and held as under: “i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal. ii. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very 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. iii. "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. iv. 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. v. 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. vi. 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.” - 4–

On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limie holding the appeal to be time barred by two days, without deciding the ground raised in appeal on merits. Before us, learned AR for the Assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliances will be made and all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Others (supra), we set aside the impugned order passed by ld. CIT (A) and the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits of the appeal. The Assessee shall submit all relevant materials and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of its grounds and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 03.09.2026. (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 03.09.2026 DS, PS - 5–

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT आयकरआयु"(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 4. 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड"फाईल /Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.