BRAJESH KUMAR YADAV ,ALIGARH vs. THE ITO-4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 722/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Brajesh Kumar Yadav, V THE ITO 4(1)(1), LIG-23, Prince Colony, Ramghat Road, Qadiri Melrose Byepass, Aligarh- Building, Marris Road, 202001 Aligarh-202001 PAN: AAHPY3857A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Naveen Gargh, Adv. Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 28.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.10.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.08.2026 passed in appeal No ADDL/JCIT (A) INDORE/10029/ 2018-19 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, APPEAL/ ADDL/JCIT (A) INDORE [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2019-20, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal as time barred and on merits as well against the intimation order dated

ITA No.722/Agr/2026 01.09.2019 whereby assessee’s claim of exemption of Rs. 4,74,373/- u/s 10(10AA) of the Act as leave encashment on retirement, was disallowed. 2. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal as time barred and on merit as well. 3. This second appeal has been preferred by the assessee on the ground in addition to many others that ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay, contrary to law and CBDT direction. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 01.05.2026 against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 01.09.2019 by a delay of about 2404 days. The reasons for delay have been stated in paras 4.3 & 4.4 of the impugned order as under: “4.3. The appellant has submitted that the Subsequent issuance of CBDT Notification No.31/2023 dt.24th May, 2023 is having RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT for Exemption u/s 10(10AA) of the I.T. Act, whereby the limit is enhanced to Rs.25,00,000/- (Old Limit Rs.3,00,000/-). It is further submitted by the appellant that multiple ITAT decisions have held the same (the amendment) to be retrospective. It has been stated that the appellant became aware of the said judicial position only recently and after coming across appellate orders passed in similar cases. 4.4. The appellant has further relied upon judicial principles laid down in cases advocating liberal interpretation of condonation provisions and has pleaded that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. It has been contended that the appellant acted bona fide and approached the appellate

2 | P a g e

ITA No.722/Agr/2026 forum immediately upon becoming aware of the favourable legal position. The appellant has therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned in the interest of substantial justice and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits.” 6. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld 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 the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed period. Ld CIT(A), however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine. 7. We take judicial notice of the fact that the duration of delay caused in filing appeal before the first appellate authority overlaps the period of spread of global pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken care of, by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated 10.01.2022, the Apex Court directed that its order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent order dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any

3 | P a g e

ITA No.722/Agr/2026 general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings after exclusion of the aforesaid duration. So the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was to be excluded accordingly. 8. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice can not to be followed. The cause shown on behalf of the assessee appears to us to be sufficient to condone the remaining delay also. We, accordingly condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 9. We are further surprised to note that after refuting assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay, learned CIT(Appeals) proceeded to decide the appeal on merit, which is contrary to the law. The law on the subject is well settled that unless the delay is condoned, the appeal does not come into existence legally, and in such absence, the court is wholly without jurisdiction to hear or decide the same on merit. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), 2024 SCC online SC 489, has observed that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The

4 | P a g e

ITA No.722/Agr/2026 rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity, that the length of delay is a relevant matter, which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with merits of the main matter. However, the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 11. Thus, the issue of condonation of delay in the proceedings has to be decided at the first instance before delving into the merits of the case. However, if the delay is condoned, there is no bar on the courts to proceed with the case and decide the same on merits on the very day. In the same manner, if the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected, the proceedings will automatically fail. It is, thus, settled that without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain such time barred appeals. 12. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No.22221 of 2025, Dinanath Singh & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Ors., held that unless delay is condoned, the appeal does not come into existence legally, and in such absence, the court is wholly

5 | P a g e

ITA No.722/Agr/2026 without jurisdiction to hear or decide the same on merits. Ld. CIT(Appeals), thus, has committed patent illegality in deciding the matter on merits after rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal. 13. Since we have condoned the delay caused in filing first appeal before ld CIT(A), the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals), who shall pass order on merit a fresh in accordance with law after considering the authoritative binding precedents brought on record by ld AR. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and co-operative in attending the proceedings and making submissions before ld. CIT(Appeals) for expeditious and effective disposal of appeal. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. 14. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 20.08.2026 is set aside.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 28.10.2026

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

Dated: 28.10.2026

6 | P a g e

ITA No.722/Agr/2026

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

7 | P a g e