SHIVDHAN GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATAPEDI,CHIRNER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that for all the three appeals under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the assessee’s appeals in limine solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating any of the substantial grounds raised by the assessee before him. He submitted that the delay in filing of the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not intentional but due to the mistake on the part of the employee of the trust. It was only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, the assessee came to know about the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and therefore urged that, in the interest of justice, all the three appeals may be set aside AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21

The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, for AY 2015-16, there was a delay of 473 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Similarly, for AY 2016-17, there was a delay of 468 days and for AY 2020-21 there was a delay of 945 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeals on account of the delay in filing of the appeals on the ground that the reasons cited by the assessee for the said delay do not constitute sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the specified period. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeals was not intentional but resulted due to the mistake on the part of the employee who failed to make necessary compliance and has urged that, in the interest of justice, as the assessee has a strong case on merits, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may be directed to condone the delay in filing of the appeals and decide the issue(s) afresh on merits of the case.

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder has held as under:

There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21

In the light of the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeals before him by the assessee and decide the appeals on merits as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions before him on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. //सत्य दपि प्रदि//// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,