RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. ACIT/DCIT-CIRCLE EXEMP 2(1), DELHI, DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” NEW DELHI MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2876/Del/2026 Assessment Year : 2024-25 Raunaq Education ACIT/DCIT, Foundation, Circle Exemp 2(1), C/o Apollo House, Plot No.7, Delhi. Institutional Area, v/s Gurgaon H.O., Gurgaon – 122 001. Haryana. PAN: AAATR1243A Appellant Respondent Shri Gaurav Singhal, CA Assessee by Department by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2026

ORDER is Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2024-25.

2 ITA No.2876/Del/2026 Raunaq Education Foundation vs. ACIT 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur ['Ld. CIT(A)'] under sec. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred In law and on facts in denying condonation of the marginal delay of three days and consequently dismissing the appeal in limine without appreciating the reasons for the delay and merits of the case. 2.1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by completely overlooking the details substantiating the sufficient cause for the marginal delay. 2.2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by failing to appreciate the settled judicial precedents wherein it has been consistently held that delay should be liberally condoned when sufficient cause is shown, particularly when the conduct of the Appellant is bona fide and delay is due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. 2.3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in placing reliance on judicial precedents involving substantial and inordinate delays, without appreciating that the present case Involves only a marginal delay of three days. 3. That the Income Tax Department, Learned Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru ('CPC') erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the provision of sec. 11 of the Act.”

3 ITA No.2876/Del/2026 Raunaq Education Foundation vs. ACIT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A).

4 ITA No.2876/Del/2026 Raunaq Education Foundation vs. ACIT glitches in filing the appeal in the income-tax e-portal. Before us, the Ld. AR had filed the screenshot along with the grievance raised by the assessee that it was unable to file Form No.35 within the due date prescribed by law. The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that the same amounts to ‘sufficient cause’ and dismissed the appeal in limine without getting into the merits of the case. This approach of the Ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the assessee’s appeal on the sole ground of a marginal delay of merely three days is wholly unjustified, hyper technical and contrary to the settled principles governing the condonation of delay. The assessee had satisfactorily explained that the delay occurred was due to the bona fide technical difficulties in filing the appeal electronically which was neither deliberate inaction or with any mala fide intention to delay the proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have adopted a justice-oriented approach in examining whether there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay, but, rather, the Ld.CIT(A) chose to reject the appeal at the threshold, thereby depriving the assessee of valuable statutory right of appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits. It is the settled principle of law that procedural rules are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the substantive rights as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which has categorically held that a liberal approach should be given while considering the application for condonation of delay, so that substantial justice prevails over technical defects. We, therefore, deem it fit to hold that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)

5 ITA No.2876/Del/2026 Raunaq Education Foundation vs. ACIT refusing to condone an insignificant delay of three days despite a plausible explanation and dismissing the appeal in limine defeats the very objective of the appellate remedy reflecting inconsistency with the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, deem it fit to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remand the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the issue denovo on the merits and in accordance with law after duly condoning the delay and giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st July, 2026 dk

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Dr, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True COPY//