SARVESH SINGH,KHATIMA, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTARAKHAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(5),KHATIMA, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTARAKHAND, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR, UTTARAKHAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 331/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, following the liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay. The technicality of limitation should not defeat substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine as it was barred by limitation. The assessee had sought condonation of delay due to medical issues, but the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the merits. Whether the assessee's explanation for the delay constituted a sufficient cause for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Smt. Sanju Kumari, Adv
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member ITA No. 331/DDN/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sarvesh Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Sarasariya Khatima, Post Office, Ward-2(3)(5), Sarasariya Khatima, Khatima, Udham Udham Singh Nagar, Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand-262308 Uttarakhand-262308 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. IPDPS0972F Assessee by : Smt. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.05.2026 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal was dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

2.

During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. However, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A), explaining that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period due to certain medical issues beyond his control. The ld.

2 ITA No. 331/DDN/2026 Sarvesh Singh CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.

3.

The ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference.

4.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.

3 ITA No. 331/DDN/2026 Sarvesh Singh And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 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 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.” 5. In view of the above, it is well settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

7.

Since the appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, we set aside the impugned order and

4 ITA No. 331/DDN/2026 Sarvesh Singh restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days of this order.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 05/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →