Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal that was time-barred by 611 days. The delay was attributed to the email ID registered on the Income Tax Portal belonging to a resigned employee, which resulted in the company not being aware of the order. The assessee filed an application seeking condonation of this delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the reasons provided constituted a "sufficient cause" for the delay, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and can be condoned based on "sufficient cause"; and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH MUMBAI
Agriwise Finserv Ltd Vs. DCIT, Circle – 3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 802, 8th Floor, Churchgate, Mumbai – Sumer Plaza, Marol 400020. maroshi Road, JB Nagar, SO, Mumbai – 400059. PAN/GIR No. AABCR0038F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 07.07.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2012- 13.
2. At the outset, we noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 611 days and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
Shri Amith Agarwal, Director of AGRIWISE FINSERV LIMITED having premises at 44, B High Tide Apartment, Juhu Tara road, Santacruz West, Juhu, 400049, Maharashtra, India, do hereby declare on solemn oath and affirmation as follows:
That the Appellate order of NFAC, Delhi for AY 2018-19 against assessment order u/s 143(3) was served to us on 07-08-2023. We were required to file the appeal before ITAT on or before 06-10- 2023. However, there is a delay of 623 days. The delay was due to the fact that the email ID registered on the Income Tax Portal belonged to an employee who had subsequently resigned from the Company. Consequently, the said email ID was no longer in use, and the Company was not made aware of the order passed thereunder. Hence the delay by us was not intentional. Thus the late filing was due to the reasons totally beyond our control. Looking at the above facts the necessary steps could not be taken, please take a lenient view and condone the delay.
This delay is wholly unintentional & beyond the control of the appellant. The word Sufficient cause' has been construed quite liberally in case of Pratap Singh [100 ITR 698 S.C.J. S.N. Ghorpade [48 ITR 54 Mumbai].
The word 'Sufficient' cause is used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, hence equally important relevance is attached to it. The Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase which is binding on all courts and Qu-asi-judicial authorities that decide condonation of delay on sufficient cause bein-g shown. Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives the court discretion to be exercised upon the principles which are well understood by the words 'sufficient cause', which receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellant. [Shankutala Jain AIR 69 S.C.]
4. Recently in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) it was held that, "Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it off on such technicalities and that too at the threshold; Unless malafied are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties;"
In case of MST Katji [167 ITR 471 S.C.], the S.C. enunciated the following principles; Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold & cause of justice being defeated as against this, when the delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.
When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side can not claim to have vested right in injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay.
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
5 Whatever is stated above in Para no 1 is true to my knowledge and belief; 6 I therefore request Your Honour to kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal as required & oblige. Solemnly declared this 03 day of July, 2025. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same as there are no ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the time.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. However, considering the fact that delay in filing the present appeal had accrued on account of the fact that email Id registered on the income tax portal belong to an employee, who had subsequently resigned from the company and the said email ID was no longer in use. Thus in this way the company was not made aware of the order passed there under. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and taking into consideration the facts narrated before us and while taking a lenient view we find that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Since there was non-cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee for delaying the proceedings which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2025.