SANDEEP KRISHANCHAND GOYAL,PUNE vs. WARD 7(3), PUNE

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that Assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 05.07.2022 for A.Y.2021-22 with the delay of 532 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed appeal as under : “5. DECISION:-

1 I have carefully gone through the Intimation u/s 143(1) and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in this regard. Briefly stating facts of the case is that the appellant filed return of income which was processed u/s 143(1) by CPC making certain adjustments over and above the returned income. The only issue involved in this case is that an amount of Rs.3,31,862/- comprising of interest received on bank and recurring deposits and from other parties reported in tax audit report (TAR) in Form 3CD but was not included in total income while filing return of income.

2 Before going into the merits of the issue involved, the matter regarding delay in filing of appeal is discussed. The impugned intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 05.07.2022. The appellant claimed to have received it on the same date. He was therefore required to file appeal on or before 04.08.2022. But the appeal was filed on 17.01.2024 thereby with a delay of 532 days. The appellant has not filed any separate petition for condoning the delay but in Form 35, against sr no. 14, stated that there was no delay. That was an incorrect statement on his part. By notice u/s 250 dated 05.01 2025, the appellant was asked to state the reasons for delay and file petition for condoning the same. But he chose to ignore the said notice. The appeal is therefore dismissed as being barred by limitation.

3 Having dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delayed filing of appeal, I am therefore not adjudicating the same on merits of the issue involved

1 However, it is observed from the order of ld.CIT(A) that Assessee’s appeal was dismissed for the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, the Assessee has filed condonation petition explaining the reason giving rise to delay. We have perused the condonation petition of the assessee and we are convinced that there is sufficient cause for the delay, hence, Delay before the ld.CIT(A) needs to be condoned. Assessee was pursuing alternate remedy in the form of Rectification.

2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Vs. UOI [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay)[06-11-2017] has observed as under while condoning the delay in that case : Quote ,“ 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay” Unquote.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that grave injustice is caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay, by ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than ITA No.1863/PUN/2025 [A]

In these facts, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide appeal on merits. Accordingly, order of ld.CIT(A) is set- aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 September, 2025. ASTHA CHANDRA