KUNAL CHAUHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

These are the three connected appeals filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] for assessment year 2022-23. 2. In ITA No. 1790/CHD/2025, there is a delay of 85 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Having considered the contents of the condonation application and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed

period. Accordingly, the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal before

the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-

in filing the same before the first appellate authority without

adjudicating the issues on merits. In ITA No. 1790/CHD/2025, the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on account of a delay

of 179 days. Similar orders have been passed in the connected

appeals.

before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate but had occurred due to bona fide reasons which were duly explained

before the first appellate authority. It was contended that the assessee should not be denied an opportunity of contesting the additions on merits merely on account of a technical lapse. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the delay be condoned and the matters be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

the Ld. CIT(A) but also in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. It was argued that the law assists those who are vigilant

in pursuing their remedies and, therefore, no undue indulgence

should be shown to the assessee.

the material available on record. We find that the assessment order

in ITA No. 1790/CHD/2025 was passed on 28.03.2024 and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed on 03.10.2024. The assessee

had furnished reasons explaining the delay before the Ld. CIT(A).

However, the Ld. CIT(A), instead of examining the matter on merits,

dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation.

to limitation is not to destroy the rights of parties but to ensure

that remedies are pursued within a reasonable time. At the same

time, where sufficient cause is shown, the delay deserves to be condoned so that substantial justice may prevail over technical

considerations. Ordinarily, a litigant should not be denied an opportunity of adjudication on merits unless the conduct of such litigant demonstrates deliberate inaction, mala fides or gross

negligence.

period of delay involved, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) deserved to have been condoned. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be better

served if the disputes are adjudicated on merits rather than being

rejected at the threshold on technical grounds. Accordingly, we

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), set

aside the impugned orders and restore all the three appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

remedies within the prescribed time. Therefore, as a condition for grant of relief, we direct the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.3,000/- in each appeal with Kaya Kalp, Palampur within 15

days from the date of receipt of this order and furnish proof thereof

before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of hearing. In case of failure to comply with the aforesaid direction, the benefit of the present

order shall not be available to the assessee and the impugned

orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand revived.

for statistical purposes in the above terms. Order pronounced on 02nd June,2026. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam”

आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

सहायक पंजीकार/