DHEERENDRA GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 689/AGR/2026Status: HeardITAT Agra26 October 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals solely on the ground of delay without condoning it. The Tribunal emphasized the well-established legal principle that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that procedural law is subservient to justice. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the Tribunal stated that the object of procedural rules is to advance justice, and parties should not ordinarily be denied an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee for condonation as sufficient cause. Consequently, the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for passing fresh orders on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessee, Dheerendra Gupta, against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Agra Bench. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(1). The assessment years involved were 2019-20 and 2020-21. The appeals challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which dismissed the assessee's first appeals. This dismissal occurred because the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's applications for condonation of delay in filing these first appeals. The procedural history indicates that the CIT(A) orders were dated 04.08.2026, and the ITAT appeals were filed subsequently. The delay in filing the first appeals varied from 74 days to 580 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals in limine upon rejection of the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing the first appeals, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the first appeals was due to a clerical mistake by their authorized representative, where papers were misplaced in the wrong folder. The assessee contended that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay and that the delay was not attributable to the assessee themselves. They relied on the principle that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.10.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 689/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20) 2. ITA No. 690/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20) 3. ITA No. 691/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20) 4. ITA No. 692/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2019-20) 5. ITA No. 693/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21) 6. ITA No. 694/Agr/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21) Dheerendra Gupta, Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), 1, Lohiya Bazar, Nalwali Aayakar Bhawan, Gali, Lashkar-474009 City Centre, Gwalior- 474011 PAN: AMBPG4386L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 26.10.2026

ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. The aforesaid appeals have been filed against the impugned orders, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed all the aforesaid appeals upon rejection of

ITA 689-694/Agr/2026

assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. The details of the first appellate proceedings pertaining to section 250 of the Act, are set out in the following table: Sr. ITA Nos. Assessment First Appeal No. Date of No. of days No Year Impugned for which Order delay is not condoned 1. 689/Agr/2026 2019-20 NFAC/2018- 04.08.2026 452 19/10509034 2. 690/Agr/2026 2019-20 NFAC/2018- 04.08.2026 580 19/10512527 3. 691/Agr/2026 2019-20 NFAC/2018- 04.08.2026 298 19/10512526 4. 692/Agr/2026 2019-20 NFAC/2018- 04.08.2026 317 19/10513071 5. 693/Agr/2026 2020-21 NFAC/2019- 04.08.2026 74 20/10509035 6. 694/Agr/2026 2020-21 NFAC/2019- 04.08.2026 580 20/10512528

3.

All these appeals have been filed on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeals upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay in filing the first appeals, resulting in the confirmation of impugned orders without affording reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. We have perused the records and heard both the parties. 5. The common issue in all the aforesaid appeals is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeals in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid first appeals.

2 | P a g e

ITA 689-694/Agr/2026

6.

We notice that the assessee has raised the following common ground before ld CIT(A) to condone the delay caused in filing the aforesaid appeals before the first appellate authority: “…….. the appellant has given all the relevant papers in the office of the authorized representative, where due to clerical mistake; the papers were kept in wrong folder and remains out of site out of mind. Now the folder has been traced out and the appeal is being filed today. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal on the part of the appellant. However, the delay is to be counted then it is attributable to the office of the authorized representative, which is reasonable cause for appellant for delay in filing the appeal, which may kindly be condoned and oblige.” 7. It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay caused in filing the same. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay caused in filing the first appeals. 8. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technicalities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, Civil Appeal no. 6731/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14562 of 2006) vide judgment dated 20.11.2008, has held that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice

3 | P a g e

ITA 689-694/Agr/2026

dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra ordinary situations in the ends of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Processual law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. 9. The object of prescribing period of limitation in filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings and to advance the cause of justice. In such circumstances, we treat the grounds raised before ld CIT(A) as sufficient. The delay is thus condonable and the appeals are liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, all the appeals namely ITA No. 689,690,691,692,693 & 694/Agr/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned orders dated 04.08.2026 each are set aside. The delay caused in filing the aforesaid first appeals before the first appellant authority i.e. before learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matters back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless

4 | P a g e

ITA 689-694/Agr/2026

to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Order pronounced in Open Court on - 26.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 26.10.2026 *Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →