SINGH TRANSPORT COMPANY,KARHAL ROAD NEAR KARHAL CHAURAHA MAINPURI UP vs. I.T.O 4(2)4 MAINPURI, KACHEHARY ROAD MAINPURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 452/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 July 2026AY 2018-20198 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) beyond the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of delay, rejecting the assessee's prayer for condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits, despite the CIT(A) rejecting the condonation application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 250,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271F,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri. Anil Kumar, Sr DR
Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No 451,452,453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2018-19, 2017-18, 2017-18, 2017-18, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively Singh Transport Company, Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2)(4), Near Karhal Road, Near karhal Kachehari Road, Mainpuri- Chauraha, Mainpuri-205001 205001 PAN :ABQFS1198C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshta, Adv. Department by Shri. Anil Kumar, Sr DR Date of hearing 06.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.07.2026 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. 451/Agr/2026 are only being narrated as under:- ITA No. 451/Agr/2026

2.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10536838 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi)

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

(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. 2018-19, 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 notice that the first appeal was filed before ld CIT(A) on 07.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 15.09.2023 passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, beyond the prescribed period of 30 days u/s 249(2). The delay in filing the first appeal was shown due to the constrained relations with the earlier advocate/Accountant, who did neither inform assessee nor filed replies to the notice. The appellant had no knowledge of income tax portal and the internet. He was solely dependent on the tax consultant for uploading/downloading paper or notice from the IT portal. It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of aforesaid delay. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. 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 delay.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

4.

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 handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. 5. 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 totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay caused in filing the

3 | P a g e

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

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. 452/Agr/2026

6.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10536837 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 06.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 12.09.2023 passed u/s 270A 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 451/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this case also. ITA No. 453/Agr/2026

7.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10537532 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer

4 | P a g e

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

for the condonation of delay. The first appeal was filed on 08.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 05.01.2022 passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. The cause for the delay shown in this case is almost identical as stated hereinabove. Hence, our findings in ITA 451/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this case also. ITA No. 456/Agr/2026

8.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10536833 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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. The first appeal was filed on 07.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 06.08.2019 passed u/s 272A(1)(d) 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 451/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this case also.

5 | P a g e

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

ITA No. 461/Agr/2026

9.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10537533 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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. The first appeal was filed on 08.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 30.12.2021 passed u/s 271F 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 451/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this case also.

ITA No. 462/Agr/2026

10.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10537534 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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. The first appeal was filed on 08.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 05.01.2022 passed u/s 271B of the Act

6 | P a g e

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

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 451/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this appeal also. ITA No. 465/Agr/2026 11. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2016-17/10536832 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC(Delhi) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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. The first appeal was filed on 07.12.2025 against the penalty order dated 27.06.2025 passed u/s 270A 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 451/Agr/2026 shall mutatis-mutandis apply in this appeal also. 12. In the result, all the assessee’s appeals viz ITA No. 451, 452, 453, 456, 461, 462 & 465/Agr/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned orders stand set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. before the ld CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A) for

7 | P a g e

ITA No.451-453,456,461,462&465/Agr/2026

passing order a fresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 06.07.2026

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

8 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →