DAYANAND REVANASIDDAPPA MUDDEBIHAL,VIJAYPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIJAPUR

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.09.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080772284(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23.

ITA No.2586/Bang/2025 Dayanand RevanasiddappaMuddebihal, Vijayapura Page 2 of 7 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal under section 249(3) of the Act, without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and not deliberate or willful. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that technical considerations should not override substantial justice, and that the appeal ought to have been admitted and adjudicated on merits in the interest of justice. 4. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of INR 30,04,500/- to the returned income of INR 6,98,310/- under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the Appellant, being an individual, is duly eligible to claim deduction under Section 54 of the Act, in respect of investment made in a residential property. 6. The authorities belowhaveerredin law and on facts in holding thatthe exemption claimed under Section 54 of INR 30,04,500/- was not supported by valid registered sale deeds. 7. The authorities below have further erred in not considering that the sale deeds were duly registered before the appropriate authority, which constitute valid and conclusive evidence in support of the Appellant's claim, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in completing the assessment on the basis of assumptions and surmises, while totally ignoring the documentary evidence furnished by the Appellant. 9. The authorities below have erred in making the addition of INR 30,04,500/- without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 10. For the above and such other grounds as may be urged at the time ofhearing, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.

ITA No.2586/Bang/2025 Dayanand RevanasiddappaMuddebihal, Vijayapura Page 3 of 7 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to a Memo dated 04/06/2026 filed along with the medical records & submitted that the short delay of 36 days was occurred on account of genuine medical hardship and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Further, it is submitted that the assessee was suffering from acute paralysis and had been under continuous medical treatment since 2023. Due to the said condition- • The assessee was physically incapacitated. • He was unable to attend routine personal & professional matters • He was not in a position to actively follow up on the legal and compliance requirements. Further, it is submitted that the assessee had entrusted the matter of filing the appeal to a chartered Accountant. However, the said professional was also facing serious health issues and as such unable to complete the filing process within the prescribed period. Subsequently, the Chartered Accountant also expired, further contributing to the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the aforesaid background of the facts, the assessee was not in a position to effectively monitor or take timely corrective action & accordingly the ld. A.R. submitted that the delay was unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. Further, in support of his contention the assessee has also produced the copy of the medical Certificate from Pandurang Kumbar Hospital, Jugati Health Clinic as well as from St. Marry’s Centre for disabled & paralytics.

ITA No.2586/Bang/2025 Dayanand RevanasiddappaMuddebihal, Vijayapura Page 4 of 7

5.1 Further, while considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown 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. (3) '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, commonsense and pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the 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 nondeliberate delay. (5) 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.

ITA No.2586/Bang/2025 Dayanand RevanasiddappaMuddebihal, Vijayapura Page 5 of 7 (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

5.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. 5.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”.

5.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When

ITA No.2586/Bang/2025 Dayanand RevanasiddappaMuddebihal, Vijayapura Page 6 of 7 there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 36 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 36 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and admit the appeal for adjudication.

ITA No.2586/Bang/2025 Dayanand RevanasiddappaMuddebihal, Vijayapura Page 7 of 7 /submissions/information as may be required by the AO for completion of the assessment. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 31st July, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.