Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a revised return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions and levied a penalty under section 270A. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 1-day delay in filing, without a condonation application.
Held
The Tribunal held that in cases where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal decided on merits, citing Supreme Court judgments.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on a 1-day delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
Sections Cited
139(5), 147, 143(3), 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.11.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay by 1 day for which the assessee has not filed any condonation application for such delay.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an HUF and has filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 31.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.9,71,000/-. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.22,24,827/- by making addition of Rs.12,53,824/- under the head ‘Income from other sources’. Thereafter, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.1,94,089/- being 50% of tax on under-reported income of Rs.12,53,827/-.
Since there was a delay of 1 day in filing of the appeal and the assessee has not filed any condonation application for such delay, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for adjudication. He submitted that the delay of 1 day should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and he should have decided the appeal on merit.
The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find according to the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the penalty order was passed on 28.08.2025 and was served on the assessee on the same day whereas the assessee has filed the appeal on 29.09.2025 which is beyond the stipulated time limit provided for filing of the appeal. According to him, the appeal should have been presented within 30 days following the date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 1 day and the assessee has not filed any condonation application for such delay. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay of 1 day and before adjudicating the quantum appeal filed before him. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the quantum appeal is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for adjudication. It is also his submission that the delay of 1 day should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the appeal should have been decided on merit.
We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay after obtaining the condonation application from the assessee explaining the reasons for such delay and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st April, 2026.