REETA BHASIN,NDRAPURI RAILWAY ROAD, ETAH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1), ETAH, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAILWAY ROAD, ETAH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 476/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 August 2026AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that procedural law is subservient to justice. They condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their first appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of approximately 138 days. The assessee cited non-receipt of notice and lack of expertise as reasons for the delay, requesting condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Deependra Mohan, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 476/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Reeta Bhasin, Vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), 52, Indrapuri Railway Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Railway Etah-207001 Road, Etah-207001 PAN: BUSPB0606G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Deependra Mohan, CA. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 23.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 23.07.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10193141 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation.

ITA No.476/Agr/2026

2.

Adjournment application moved on behalf of the appellant assessee was rejected. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. 3. At the very outset, we find that the first appeal was filed before ld CIT(A) on 15.09.2022 against the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 by a delay of about 138 days. The ground taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) was that the said delay was caused due to non receipt of any notice. Delay was also caused due to assessee not being expert in income tax matters. The non-compliance was unintentional. Assessee requested for the condonation of delay and admit the first appeal. 4. It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay of about 138 days caused in filing the same. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay of 138 days caused in filing the first appeal. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on

2 | P a g e

ITA No.476/Agr/2026

technicalities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, Civil Appeal no. 6731/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14562 of 2006) vide judgment dated 20.11.2008, has held that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra ordinary situations in the ends of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Processual law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. 5. The object of prescribing period of limitation in filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings and to advance the cause of justice. In the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 138 days caused in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.476/Agr/2026

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 24.03.2026 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellant authority i.e. before learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 23.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 03.08.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →