GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE , PUNE

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 12.02.20211 declaring income of Rs.31.80 crore. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act determining income of Rs.33.38 crore after making certain adjustments, resulting into tax demand of Rs.1.65 crore. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal against the Intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act but with a delay of 635 days. Assessee company filed condonation application before ld.CIT(A) stating that assessee was awaiting the outcome of the Rectification application u/s.154 of the Act and delay is neither deliberate nor contumacious and prayed to condone the delay. However, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding that as under :

Now the assessee has approached the Tribunal contending that ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay when there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal in time.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We proceed to adjudicate whether the delay in the instant case deserves condonation.

There is no dispute that u/s. 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on its part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. The purpose of the limitation period is to ensure expeditious disposal of appeal; however, where the delay is shown to be unintentional and caused by reasonable circumstances, it ought to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

We have gone through the reasons which led to delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) and we are satisfied that the assessee has made out a case of ‘sufficient cause’ warranting exercise of discretion u/s.253(5) of the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 635 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382.

A perusal of impugned order reveals that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated on merits of the case. We therefore considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 and restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.