TILOTTAMA RAJARAM DESHPANDE,PUNE vs. THE ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) the appeal was filed with a delay of 176 days. Since, according to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act for delay in filing of the appeal, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee without deciding the issue on merits.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the learned AO amounting to Rs. 41,183/- for concealment of particulars of income on account of 'non-inclusion of interest income' without appreciating that, the non-inclusion of income was an inadvertent error, which appellant was unaware of until conclusion of proceedings u/s 153C, and such "error" ipso facto ought not to be considered as an offence calling for a penal consequence, since the same was not wilful in nature. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, thereby denying the Appellant an opportunity of having the matter adjudicated on merits. 3. Appellant contends, although the interest income was not included in the returned income, TDS was deducted on the same by Punjab National Bank and the same were already available before the learned AO vide mechanism of Form 26AS. 4. Appellant craves leave to add/ alter/clarify/ explain/modify/ delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.”

The Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.AO levied penalty of Rs.41,183/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of particulars of income to the extent of interest income of Rs. 1,99,919/- not offered to tax by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay in filing of the appeal without dealing with the issue on merits. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but occurred due to the reasons stated above. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find some force in his contentions

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that 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. 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.

We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: "14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation."

In the light of the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him by the assessee and decide the appeal on merits as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and make his submissions before him on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass

Since the facts of the present appeals and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are identical to the facts and grounds of appeal in ITA No.1677/PUN/2026, for the AY. 2014-15 (supra) and therefore, our findings in the said appeal, mutatis mutandis, would apply to these appeals as well. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay in filing of these appeals and decide the same on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The effective grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.