BIJENDER SINGH,TIGAON, FARIDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2393/Del/2026 Asstt. Year : 2017-18

Bijender Singh, vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), 144, Tajpur, Tigaon, New CGO Complex, Faridabad NH-4, NIT Faridabad [PAN: DJYPS1790B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by : Sh. G.P. Singh, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10506199 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/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 “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that this appeal was filed on 6.3.2026 against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 by the delay of about 6 days. In assessee’s application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the said delay was caused due to medical illness of the assessee. Keeping the span of delay in view, we treat the

cause sufficient to condone the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned, the appeal is admitted for hearing 3. Perused the records and heard the Ld. Representatives for both the parties. It transpires from the records that the assessee filed first appeal on 1.7.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 8.1.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the appeal before him. The limitation period for filing an appeal before the 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. Ld. CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 175 days. 4. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. 5. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 175 days. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. Learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. 2 | P a g e

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date: 02.07.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

3 | P a g e