JAYSHREE SHARAD SHETH,VILE PARLE WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2021–22 arising from the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income on 31.12.2021 declaring total income of ₹98,02,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2022 determining the total income at ₹1,48,02,520/- inter alia by disallowing the claim of deduction of ₹50,00,000/- under section 54EC of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2023. There was a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that no application for condonation of delay was filed and despite opportunity, no explanation was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, invoking section 249(3), the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits.

The assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the delay is marginal and unintentional, and that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without granting proper opportunity and without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was further submitted that the claim under section 54EC is otherwise allowable and requires consideration on merits.

The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The power to condone delay under section 249(3) is discretionary but is required to be exercised judiciously. In the present case, the delay is not inordinate and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or on account of any mala fide intention.

We further note that the Ld. CIT(A), being the first appellate authority, is duty bound to adjudicate the issues arising from the assessment order. Dismissal of appeal in limine, particularly for a marginal delay, defeats the statutory right of appeal and results in denial of adjudication on merits.

In our considered view, the approach of the Ld. CIT(A) is hyper- technical. Even assuming that no formal application for condonation of delay was filed, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. The principles of natural justice require that the assessee should not be denied an opportunity of being heard.

Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, the smallness of delay and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee on merits in

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.