SHRI SAI BADAVANE KSHEMABHIVRUDDI SANGH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

The present appeal is delayed by 14 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee society. Having considered the submissions of the assessee in the application as well as the affidavit, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and proceed to decide the same.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act on the ground that the appeal is delayed by 177 days. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

As per the assessee, the hard copy of the order passed under section 154 of the Act was not served on the assessee, and therefore, it was not aware that the rectification request was rejected. It is the plea of the assessee that it came to know of the rejection of the rectification application only through its consultant. Thus, as per the assessee, thereafter, the necessary steps were taken to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A), and due to the aforementioned circumstances, the appeal was filed after a delay of 177 days. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that even to date, the copy of the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act has not been served on the assessee.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. M.S. Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the rules of procedure are handmade of justice. When the substantial justice taking into consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, it is evident that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we are of the view that delay should be condoned. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for de novo consideration, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) / learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal before us do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-Aug-2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 21-Aug-2026.