KISHAN SINGH CHAMPAWAT,JAISALMER vs. ITO , JAISALMER

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BENCH: SMC

BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 1174/JODH/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 KISHAN SINGH CHAMPAWAT ITO RICHKA CHOK, EKOKI PHOL, NEAR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Vs. IDEAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, POKRAN, JAISALMER-, RAJASTHAN JAISALMER-345021, RAJASTHAN Appellant Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: BDPPC 1884 B

Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Appellant represented by: (Through V.C.) Smt. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT - Sr. DR Respondent represented by: (Through V.C.) Date of conclusion of hearing: 08 / 09 / 2026 Date of pronouncement: 27/ 10 / 2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 28th November 2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], by which the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine.

2 ITA 1174/JODH/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 85 days. The learned CIT(A), without condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation and, consequently, the issues raised by the appellant were not adjudicated on merits. 3. During course of hearings before us, reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Learned AR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) erroneously rejected the application of condonation of delay, without following principle of natural justice and adopted pedantic and hyper technical approach. We find that the Learned CIT(A) observed in impugned order that “ as can be seen it is not even a proper petition for condonation of delay. The appellant has cited no reason for condonation of delay and he only asserted that it would be submitted at the time of hearing.” In such a factual backdrop, we are of the view that it was legally required to demonstrate sufficient cause of not filing said appeal in time at the threshold of appeal by submitting proper application as per law. It is established principle of law and held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst. Katiji, that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay, in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on “merits” and expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful

3 ITA 1174/JODH/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 manner which subserves the ends of justice as there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. 4. On careful consideration of above fact situation, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), in order to achieve goal of justice and ensuring disposal of issues on merits, the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay of appellant and if he finds, sufficient cause, then admit the appeal and adjudicate the grounds raised by the appellant on merits, in accordance with law. 5. The appellant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall be at liberty to furnish all relevant documents and submissions in support of its case. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 27/10/ 2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS

4 ITA 1174/JODH/2025 Asst. Year: 2017-18 True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 10:51:09 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench