ARSHAD JAMAL SIDDIQUI,GURSAHAIGANJ vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC/ ALIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 213/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Arshad Jamal Siddiqui, Dil Pasand Vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Marris Rd, Biri Company, Gandhi Nagar, Civil Lines, Aligarh-202001 Gursahaiganj, Kannauj-209722 PAN : AKYPS4868E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri V.C. Mishra, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 19.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2019-20/10203779 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (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. 2020-21, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 2. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on various grounds, including one that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal

ITA No.213/Agr/2026

ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. Perused the records. Heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue only to the extent that, whether the ex-parte order passed by ld CIT(A), dismissing assessee’s appeal in limine, is sustainable. 4. At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 29.12.2022 against the assessment order dated 28.09.2022 by a delay of about 61 days. 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. Assessee raised the ground of delay before ld CIT(A) through form 35, that assessee as well as his C.A., Mr. RK Kanodia, were suffering from illness and were confined to bed rest, hence the first appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. Learned CIT(A), however, did not find it as sufficient cause to condone the said delay of 61 days in filing the first appeal. 5. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technicalities. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system, no party

2 | P a g e

ITA No.213/Agr/2026

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. 6. 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 interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to treat the above ground of delay as sufficient and condone the said delay of 61 days caused in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. The delay is accordingly condoned. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 08.01.2026 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellant authority i.e. before learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order a fresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that

3 | P a g e

ITA No.213/Agr/2026

the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 19.05.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:25.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e