QUESS CORP LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted that the representative of the assessee was busy with the tax audit, and therefore, the filing of appeal in the present case inadvertently was missed out. The Ld.AR submitted that in the interest of justice, the issue may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider based on the evidences filed on merits.

He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 4.1 On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that sufficient notices were issued to assessee which was ignored and therefore objected the plea raised by the Ld.AR. 5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 6. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. We have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(supra), if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. 8. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits based on the documents and evidences filed by the assessee.