JAYESHKUMAR HARJANI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine on the ground of delay.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, i.e., with a delay of 17 days from the prescribed time limit under section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without adjudicating the appeal on merits, dismissed the same in limine on the ground of delay, holding that no sufficient cause had been shown for condonation.

Not satisfied with the order of CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following solitary ground:

During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is a small taxpayer and was not fully aware of the procedural formalities, and the delay in filing the Jayeshkumar Harjani vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 3 appeal occurred due to inadvertent oversight. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide and should have been condoned in the interest of justice. It was further submitted that the assessee had submitted relevant documents, including ledger confirmation from Vodafone, stock records and sales register before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of his grounds, but the same were not considered as the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and reiterated the reasoning given in the assessment order. However, the DR fairly submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits, he would have no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits.

We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. The central issue before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine merely on account of a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, without condoning the delay or adjudicating the matter on merits.

The appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, as against the statutory due date of 27.01.2020 (i.e., 30 days from service of assessment order dated 27.12.2019). Thus, there is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order, observed that the assessee had not provided a satisfactory explanation for such delay and accordingly declined to condone the same.

In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal on a short technical delay, without considering the merits of the case, is not in consonance with the settled principles of natural justice. The power to condone delay is a discretionary power, which must be exercised judiciously and with a view to do substantial justice. The delay of 17 days, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be regarded as inordinate or unexplained, particularly when the assessee had already initiated the appellate process within a reasonable time.

Ordinarily, the assessee does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 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 is decided on merits after hearing the parties.

In the present case, there is no evidence of negligence, indifference, or mala fides on the part of the assessee. The delay is marginal, the explanation is reasonable, and more importantly, refusal to condone would result in

In our view, justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities, particularly when the appellate remedy under the Act is substantive and meant to redress genuine grievances. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.