PRASHANT CHANDRAVADAN DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Before the CIT(Appeals), the primary issue which arose for consideration was regarding delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the appeal was filed on 29.01.2018 as against the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 and therefore there was a delay of 3 days beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 249(2) of the Act. The assessee contended that the order was received on 01.01.2018 and therefore there was no delay; however, CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to substantiate the said claim with any documentary evidence and also did not file any application for condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals), while dealing with this issue, held that the onus was on the assessee to establish sufficient cause for delay as required under section 249(3) of the Act read with section 5 of the Limitation Act. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial precedents like the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321 and Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685, and also the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773, and held that the assessee had failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for delay and had also not sought condonation of delay in Form No. 35. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay of 3 days and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed in limine on account of delay of merely 3 days without adjudicating the issues on merits. It is a settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” appearing in section 249(3) of the Act should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering condonation of delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that length of delay is not material and what is relevant is acceptability of the explanation and that a liberal approach should be adopted unless the delay is due to mala fide or deliberate inaction.

In the present case, the delay involved is only 3 days, which is negligible, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was intentional or due to any mala fide conduct on the part of the assessee. In our considered view, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have adopted a reasonable approach and condoned such a minor delay in the interest of substantial justice rather than dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the issues on merits.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file with a direction

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2026