MAHARCHAND,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. However, the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal, but the ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with

Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference.

We have heard t both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably

We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which find mentions in para 4, as under: “The assessee is illiterate super senior citizen and is not familiar with internet and was not aware that penalty orders have been passed against him. Under these circumstances, your honour is requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal.” 7. It is settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order is set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to condone the delay in dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh, after giving effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 03/06/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR