RAKESH VIJAYVERGIYA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

At the very outset, we find that the first appeal was instituted before ld CIT(A) on 14.06.2025 against the assessment order dated 28.03.2025 by a delay of about 43 days. The ground taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “That, in this case the assessment was completed vide order date 28.03.2025 and received by the appellant on 02.04.2025 Accordingly, the appeal was to be filed on 01.05.2025 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The appellant has also deposited the appeal fees of Rs. 1,000 on 01.04.2025 vide challan no. 01035 i.e. within time for filing the appeal. In this case, 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.” 3. We have perused the records and heard both the parties. 4. It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay of about 43 days 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 of 43 days caused in filing the first appeal.

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 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. 6. The object of prescribing period of limitation in filing the appeal is to expedite the proceedings and to advance the cause of justice. The cause shown by the appellant before ld CIT(A) is treated as sufficient and is liable to be condoned.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 15.09.2026 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellant authority i.e. before learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.