TREND EAST WEST LPG BOTTLING LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 378/Del/2026 Asstt. Year : 2009-10

TREND EAST WEST LPG BOTTLING VS. DCIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI LIMITED, A-1/76, FIRST FLOOR, NEW VALLEY, FREEDOM FIGHTER ENCLAVE, NEB SARAI, NEW DELHI – 110 068 [PAN: AABCT9443N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Shubham Bansal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. G.P. Singh, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2026

ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Delhi -26 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in liminie on account of being time barred. 2. Perused the records and heard the Ld. Representatives for both the parties. It transpires from the records that the assessee filed first appeal on 17.1.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order dated 24.3.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely

upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of 842 days in filing the appeal before him. However, the assessee made the prayer for condonation of delay of 842 days on the ground that assessee’s Director, who was looking after the day to day affairs of the company, was suffering from ill health for long period due to which it became difficult for the company to file the appeal within time period before the Ld. CIT(A). The limitation period for filing an appeal before the 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. Ld. CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 842 days. 4. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. 5. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 842 days. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. Learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

2 | P a g e

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 03.07.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

3 | P a g e