Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) for AY 2023-24 was dismissed because of a 207-day delay in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee attributed this delay to a professional misunderstanding by their accountant.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 207-day delay, ruling that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, citing a Supreme Court precedent. The tribunal noted that dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a decision on merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act, and thus restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee a reasonable hearing opportunity.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of a 207-day delay in filing the appeal and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding it on merits.
Sections Cited
250(6)
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, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.03.2025 for the AY 2023-24.
At the outset, we observe that the appeal has been decided by the ld. CIT (A) by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 207 days. The assessee was seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that due to professional misunderstanding on the part of the accountant of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed within the time. In our opinion, the justice cannot be denied on the technical reasons as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh vs. Mst. Katiji And Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 (SC), that substantial justice must prevail on the technicalities. Therefore, considering the reason cited before the ld. CIT (A), we condone the delay. Since, the appeal has
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2025.