ROHELLA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 21(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 462 days in filing the appeal without considering the circumstances leading to the delay and without granting an effective opportunity to explain the same. It was further submitted that once the appeal was treated as barred by

Per contra, ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee has not filed an affidavit for condoning the delay and thus the appeal has rightly been dismissed by the CIT(A), which does not need any interference.

We have heard both 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.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee could not file the appeal before ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time due to an oversight and inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee's staff, who failed to bring the assessment order to the notice of the assessee's representative. Consequently, the assessee could not contact its Chartered Accountant/Advocate in time for filing the appeal. It is, therefore, contended that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to prosecute the appeal on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order be set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. Rifaur Rahman) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14/07/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR