MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay and dismissed the appeal observing the delay to be inordinate and that the reasons cited by the assessee do not constitute to be „sufficient cause‟ for not presenting the appeal in time.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The impugned notice u/s 148 dated 07.04.2022 is invalid and bad in law being issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Act and consequently the impugned Assessment Order u/s 147 dt 24.02.2024 is invalid and bad in law which may be cancelled. 3. Whether impugned Assessment Order u/s 147 are time barred as the notice dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act? 4. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3546931/- u/s 69A rws 115BBE in respect of cash deposits in bank account without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld CT(A) erred in la and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2145000/- u/s 45 in respect of capital gains without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

The Ld. AR at the outset submitted that there is no inordinate delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. She submitted that in Form 35, the assessee inadvertently mentioned the date of receipt of assessment order as 07.04.2022 and accordingly the number of days of delay i.e. 755 was calculated. However, the assessee received the order of the Ld. AO on 24.02.2024 which is the same date as the date of passing of the assessment order by the Ld. AO. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 31.05.2024 and hence there is a delay of only about 66 days in filing of the appeal. Thus, there is no inordinate delay for which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the 3

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC and submitted that the reasons cited by the Ld. AR do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that there is an inordinate delay of 755 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee. Further, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not find the reason(s) cited by the assessee for such delay to be reasonable/sufficient for condoning the said delay. Before us, the Ld. AR has demonstrated that in fact there is only a delay of 66 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee inadvertently mentioned the wrong date of receipt of assessment order in Form 35 which showed the delay of 755 days instead of 66 days. It is the also the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay was not deliberate but has occurred due to the reason(s) mentioned in the preceding paragraph and thus there was a reasonable cause on the part of 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 light of the above factual matrix of the case and the decision(s) of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra), we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit(s) as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide his latest email id to the Department and remain vigilant in accessing and responding to the emails received from the office of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear and make a submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment unless required for a sufficient cause. 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.

अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि//// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,