Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A)/JCIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal for delay. The assessee had filed the appeal before the CIT(A) beyond the prescribed time limit, and the delay was not condoned.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when dealing with delay. It directed the Ld. Addl CIT(A)/JCIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to decide the appeal on merit, considering the facts and circumstances.
Sections Cited
143(1), 249, 250, 251
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, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A), Jodhpur relating to assessment year 2023-24.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by 249 days and thereby dismissing the same.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 29.07.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,26,83,380/-. The Assessing Officer / CPC passed the order on 16.04.2024 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) assessing the total income at Rs.1,26,83,380/-. In the said intimation, the foreign tax credit was not allowed to the extent of Rs.9,63,373/- in respect of the foreign income. The date of service of order as per Form 35 is 16.04.2024. However, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) on 22.02.2025. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal by recording as under: “Decision on Condonation of Delay:- The facts of the case and the grounds raised
by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noticed that there is a delay in filing of appeal. The appeal is to be filed within 30 days of the date of the service of the order. During the appellate proceedings, it is found from the Form No.35 that the appellant filed the present appeal on 22.02.2025 whereas the date of order u/s 143(1) was on 16.04.2024 and as per Form No.35, the date of service of order was 16.014.2024. As per the dates given in Form 35, it appears that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed due date. The reasons stated by the appellant have been perused but are not found to be tenable as the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or any other hardship for delay in filing of the present appeal and hence, the same cannot be condoned. The above view has also been taken by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai [2023] 153 faxmann.com 354 (Madras) in a recent decision. Thus, the appeal filed by appellant is not maintainable as the same is filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s 249 of the IT Act for filing of appeal and there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, which can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed u/s. 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed.
4. In the end, the present appeal is dismissed.”
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the contents of the condonation application filed before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) which read as under: “Sub: Application for seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal May it please Your Honour, 1. This has a reference to the appeal preferred by me against the order u/sec. 143(1) of the Act for AY 2023-24 dated 16.04.2024 2. I received the copy of the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act on 16.04.2024 and therefore the appeal should have been filed by 16.05.2024, I have filed the appeal on 22.02.2025. That there is delay in filling the appeal by 283 days. 3. On receiving the copy of the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act I informed my previous consultant for taking further course of action against the said order and necessary compliance as I was totally dependent on him and was under bonafide belief that he will do all the necessary compliances. 4. I am a software engineer and being a software engineer I am not very well versed with the procedure and notices issued by the Income Tax Department, and I totally relied on my tax consultant. 5. On receipt of the outstanding demand notice from the department I came to know that appeal against the intimation order u/s 143[1] of the Act was not filed. Thereafter, I consulted another Senior Chartered Accountant in the second week of February 2025 with all the relevant papers and he explained me all the facts and the time limit for filling an appeal against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he advised me to file an appeal against the said order before Hon'ble CIT(A) National faceless Appeal Center, Delhi.
6. As instructed by the senior consultant, I immediately took steps to file an appeal before CIT(A) National faceless Appeal Center, Delhi.
Thus, filing of appeal against the said order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act got delayed unintentionally. 8. In view of the above, I submit that there was a reasonable cause in not preferring the appeal in time before the Hon'ble CIT(A) and hence, I request that the delay of 283 days may please be condoned which is unintentional and admit the appeal filed by me. 9. I would be grateful if the above request is accepted.”
Relying on various decisions he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned and the appeal should have been heard on merit. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.
7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A).
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO / CPC and the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal by 249 days the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) did not condone the delay on the ground that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal which can be condoned. He accordingly did not admit the appeal and therefore dismissed the same. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay was not intentional and was a bonafide one. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) against the denial of foreign tax credit by the CPC.
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. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 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.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd September, 2025.