DILBAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MOHALI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “SMC”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 142/Chd/2026 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dilbar Singh, बनाम The ITO, Village Dhelpur, Gige Majra, Mohali Mohali 140307 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: JDAPS3050Q अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Purminder Kaur, CA राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.07.2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2026 आदेश/Order

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 26.11.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21

2 142/Chd/2026 issues and his limited understanding of the legal proceedings. Being an agriculturist with modest means and no regular exposure to income-tax litigation, the assessee could not pursue the appellate remedy within the prescribed period. It was further submitted that the assessee had already disclosed the reasons for the delay in Form No. 35 and the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional.

2.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was in possession of all relevant documentary evidence including the registered sale deed, Girdawari, Tehsildar's certificate establishing that the land was situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits, and bank statements evidencing the receipt of sale consideration. It was contended that these documents go to the root of the controversy and establish that the land sold was rural agricultural land falling outside the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14) of the Act. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of limitation without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer or examining the evidences placed on record. It was, therefore, prayed that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with appropriate directions to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits after considering the evidences and after obtaining a remand report, if considered necessary.

3 142/Chd/2026 3. Submissions of the Ld. DR 3.1 The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the appeal before the first appellate authority was admittedly filed beyond the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act and the assessee had neither filed a separate application seeking condonation of delay nor furnished any supporting evidence regarding the alleged health issues. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. However, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that in the event the Tribunal is inclined to restore the matter, suitable directions may be issued to the assessee to file a proper application for condonation of delay along with supporting material before the learned CIT(A), and the learned CIT(A) may thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law.

4.0 Findings of the Tribunal 4.1 I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). 4.2 The undisputed factual position is that the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground that there was a delay in filing the appeal and that the assessee had not filed a

4 142/Chd/2026 separate application for condonation of delay supported by documentary evidence. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate any of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee regarding the addition of Rs.43,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged short-term capital gains. 4.3 It is a settled proposition of law that procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The power conferred upon the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 249(3) of the Act to condone the delay is discretionary and is required to be exercised in a judicious, pragmatic and justice-oriented manner. The approach of the appellate authority while considering an application for condonation of delay should ordinarily be liberal where no mala fides or deliberate negligence is discernible and where refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of an effective opportunity to challenge the assessment on merits. 4.4 In the present case, I find that the controversy raised by the assessee relates to the taxability of sale proceeds of agricultural land and the assessee claims to possess documentary evidence in support of his contention that the land sold was rural agricultural land excluded from the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14) of the Act. Such a controversy deserves adjudication on merits rather than being rejected at the threshold on technical considerations,

5 142/Chd/2026 particularly when the statute itself empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay upon being satisfied about the existence of sufficient cause. 4.5 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. 5.0 Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal afresh. The assessee is directed to file a proper application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), along with such supporting material as may be available. Upon receipt of such application, the learned CIT(A) shall consider the same in a fair, reasonable, liberal and justice-oriented manner. It is expected that the learned CIT(A) shall adopt a pragmatic and magnanimous approach while examining the request for condonation of delay so that a litigant is not denied adjudication on merits merely on account of technicalities. 5.1 In the event the delay is condoned, the learned CIT(A) shall adjudicate all the grounds of appeal on merits after considering the documents and evidences that may be produced by the assessee. If any fresh documentary evidence is filed, the learned CIT(A) shall

6 142/Chd/2026 obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, furnish a copy thereof to the assessee, permit the assessee to file a rejoinder, and thereafter decide the appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 5.2 It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and all issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A). 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08. 2026 Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER rkk आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar