THE NEXT AUTOMOTIVE ERA PVT LTD,FARIDABAD (HARYANA) vs. WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [in short

‘CIT(A)’] dated 19.2.2026, for assessment year 2020-21.

without condoning delay of 134 days in filing of appeal has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine. Explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeal, the ld.

Counsel submits that there were some mistakes in the assessment order, the

assessee had filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act for rectification of mistakes

before the AO. The assessment order was passed on 31.3.2025 and the assessee

immediately filed an application for rectification on 7.4.2025. Assessee was

waiting for the outcome of rectification application. He submits if the

rectification application would have been allowed by the AO, there would have

no need to file appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee received rectification

order on 08.07.2025, the AO had rejected assessee’s rectification application.

Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). This

resulted in delay of 134 days in filing of appeal. The ld. Counsel pointed the

reasons causing delay were duly recorded in Form 35.

filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee was

purportedly waiting for the outcome of rectification application filed before the

AO, that caused delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. I

am satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate

Authority was for bonafide reasons. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs. Gobardhan Sao and others,

2002 SCC (3) 195/2022 SCR (2) 77 has held that the expression “sufficient

cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act or order 22 Rule 9

of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal

construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed 2

with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation

furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. The delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority is

condoned and the appeal is restored back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after allowing opportunity to the assessee to make submissions, in accordance with law.

assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/06/2026.

Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date: 12-06-2026 ‘SRBHATNAGAR’ Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4.CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI