M/S CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS,PUNE vs. CIRCLE-6, PUNE

There is a delay of 132 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been mentioned in the said condonation application filed along with the affidavit that the Counsel of the assessee was ill for which he was unable to attend the office. Further he was suffering from locomotor disability having 90% disability. He was admitted in the hospital for Carcinoma of rectum and various other diseases for which medical certificates are enclosed. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal due to the delay in filing of the appeal by 151 days.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and filed its return of income on 30.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.65,76,071/-. The CPC sent an intimation on 12.12.2018 determining the income at Rs.1,00,55,481/- and thereby raising a demand of Rs.13,58,210/-. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 27.12.2018 which was rejected by the CPC vide order dated 16.04.2019.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC which was rejected by him on account of delay in filing of the appeal by 151 days.

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 against the order of CPC the assessee filed a rectification application on 27.12.2018. He submitted that the assessee had also made an application in the office of the DCIT, Circle-6, Pune on 04.02.2019 which was still pending. Since the Revenue was pressing for recovery of the outstanding demand the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC which was delayed by 151 days. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal 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 AO / CPC and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 151 days, he dismissed the same on the ground that there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was pursuing the rectification application with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and therefore, he had not filed the appeal against the rectification order dated 16.04.2019 due to wrong advice. 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 the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, on the date of hearing without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 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.