RANVEER SINGH RAGHUWANSHI,GUNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 386 & 387/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ranveer Singh Raghuwanshi, Vs. ITO Guna. S/o Gopal Singh Raghuwanshi, Vill- Muhasa, Panwadi Hat, Aron, Distt-Guna-473101 PAN :BIYPR7812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The facts and issues involved in these appeals are almost identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 386/Agr/2026 are only being narrated as under.

ITA No.386&387/Agr/2026

ITA No. 386/Agr/2026 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10439509 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. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 3. At the very outset, we find that the first appeal was filed before ld CIT(A) on 01.03.2025 against the assessment order dated 25.12.2024 beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. The ground taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) was that the said delay was caused due to assessee’s severe illness and assessee was advised complete bed rest. 4. We have perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 5. It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of aforestated delay 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.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.386&387/Agr/2026

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 caused in filing the first appeal. 6. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on 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. In an adversial justice system, 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

3 | P a g e

ITA No.386&387/Agr/2026

handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. 7. 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 condone the aforesaid delay caused in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority and restore the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A) for adjudicating the matter on merits.

ITA No. 387/Agr/2026 8. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10438215 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/ NFAC(Delhi) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. The first appeal was filed on 26.02.2025 against the order dated 12.01.2023 passed u/s 147/144 of the Act beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. The cause for the delay shown in this case is identical as stated hereinabove. Hence, our findings in ITA 386/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this case also.

4 | P a g e

ITA No.386&387/Agr/2026

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 07.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 09.07.2026 *AS, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e