RAJESH KUMAR CHAUHAN, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay.

After considering the condonation application filed by the Assessee, we find sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. We therefore condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication.

Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and the appeals were heard together therefore they are being disposed of by this consolidate order.

We shall take up the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 1301/Chd/2025 for A.Y. 2021 as a lead case for discussion, wherein Assessee has raised the following grounds:

Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record reveal that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed under section 270A of the Act. As is evident from the impugned order, the appeal was filed with a delay of 106 days and no condonation application explaining the delay was filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), after issuing notice and affording opportunity, observed that despite a clear delay, the assessee neither acknowledged the delay nor furnished any reasonable cause for condonation thereof, and accordingly dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable in limine.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before us.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds without affording a final opportunity to cure the defect has resulted in denial of substantial justice. It was contended that the assessee is now willing to file a proper application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons supported by evidence and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted in the interest of justice.

Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus cast

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed position that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed belatedly and no condonation application was filed at that stage. At the same time, it is also a settled principle of law that procedural defects should not come in the way of adjudication of substantive rights, provided the assessee demonstrates bona fide conduct and willingness to comply with statutory requirements.

1 Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain the delay. However, such opportunity cannot be granted in a routine manner and must be coupled with appropriate conditions to ensure diligence on the part of the assessee.

2 Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with the following directions: (i) The assessee shall file a proper application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A), clearly explaining the reasons for delay along with supporting evidences; (ii) The assessee shall deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with Dream & Beauty Charitable Trust, Doraha, Ludhiana within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order; (iii) The proof of deposit of the aforesaid cost shall be placed on record before this Tribunal immediately after such deposit; (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the condonation application in accordance with law and thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3 It is made clear that failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the aforesaid directions shall result in dismissal of the appeal without further reference to the Tribunal.

In the result, the present appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.

Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the other appeal, i.e., ITA No. 1302/Chd/2025, are exactly identical to those in ITA No. 1301/Chd/2025, and that similar contentions raised therein may be considered. Therefore, our findings and directions given in ITA No. 1301/Chd/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal as well. Accordingly, the same is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File