SUNIL VIRSINGBHAI CHARPOT,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 12/01/2026, passed by The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-7 Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 28/11/2019 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment year 2011-2012. 2. The grounds raised by the Assessee read as under: Assessment Year 2012-2013

We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.

The primary grievance of the Assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same as being barred by limitation. During the course of hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that Learned CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that the delay of 622 days computed by the Assessing Officer overlapped with COVID-19 Pandemic period. This fact was specifically placed before the Learned CIT(A) while seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. However, the Leaned CIT(A) failed to consider the same. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A).

Perusal of record shows that the Assessment Order was passed on 28/11/2019 and appeal was instituted before the Learned CIT(A) on 08/09/2021. Admittedly, lockdown was imposed on account of the spread of Covid-19 Pandemic in March 2020. Vide order, dated 10/01/2022, passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, inter alia, provided additional time in cases where the period of limitation expired during the specified period starting from 15/03/2020 and ending on 28/02/2022. In case the aforesaid period starting from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 is excluded, the effective delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) gets reduced substantially. In the case of Aditya

Further, we note that in the present case the bonafides of the explanation offered by the Assessee has not been challenged by the Learned CIT(A). In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. 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. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.

Considering overall facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned. Accordingly, the Order, dated 12/01/2026, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside. Delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned and the appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication of grounds raised by the Assessee on merits. Thus, Grounds No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Since was have restored the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT(A), Ground No. 2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous without

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.