JAI DEVGIRI NAGRI SAHAKARI PATHSANSHTHA M.,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

There is a delay of 246 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. 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 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 in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP and filed its return of income on 28.12.2020 declaring total income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) of Rs.32,435/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for verification of the following issues: (i) Large commission expenses and low net profit (ii) High liabilities as compared to low income / receipts

accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed certain details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.09.2022 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,63,963/- wherein he made addition of Rs.18,72,610/- being the disallowance of 1/4th of commission income and Rs.46,91,353/- being 1/4th of gross interest receipts as deemed income and disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act at Rs.32,435/-.

Since there was a delay of 121 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that although the assessee has engaged a new Advocate however due to his busy schedule, he could not file the appeal in time for which the delay has occurred. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have dismissed the appeal on account of delay and should have decided the appeal on merit by condoning the delay. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue 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 Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC 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 121 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in view of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have decided the issue on merit since the issues are decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions.

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for 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) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make her submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. 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.