Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to a 176-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of the intimation order and filed an affidavit explaining that they became aware of the demand only after an adjustment of a refund, after which the appeal was filed.
Held
The ITAT, considering the assessee's affidavit and various Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay (including Section 5 of the Limitation Act principles), found the explanation for the delay to be reasonable and bona fide. The delay was condoned, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned based on the explanation provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), - Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 10.02.2025 for AY 2020-21.
Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932 Ltd.
The present appeal has been filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as there was a Bonafide delay of 176 days and in spite of submitting plausible explanation the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the same and reject the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on merit of the case. The assessee has filed Affidavit to this effect that no order has been received by the assessee and delay has been caused only on this ground.
The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal. Before us, the assessee filed an Affidavit which is as follows:
In this context, we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Ethelbari Tea Company 1932 Ltd. reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]: "... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant."
In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”
Keeping in view the facts and the reason as stated in the affidavit as well as the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court we are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to place its case before the CIT(A). Affidavit of the assessee has explained the delay and according to us it is just and reasonable, accordingly delay is here by condoned. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. The case of the assessee is hereby restored in the file of Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the case after hearing the assessee. The assessee is hereby directed to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A).
Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2025