Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing reasons such as not being aware of the CIT(A)'s order, change of accountant, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal due to the delay.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee, including the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned, and consequently, whether the appeal should be admitted for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 154, 249, 253(5), 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A), Jodhpur [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 14.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-3(2), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 151 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:
Page 2 of 7 2.1 The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld.
DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.
It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land
Page 3 of 7 Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.
It further emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by passing following order:
“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 02.03.2021 whereas the date of order u/s 143(3) was on 14.11.2019 and as per Form No. 35, the date of service of order was 26.11.2019. As per the dates given in Form 35, it appears that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed due date, even after considering the Covid-19 exempt period. The appellant stated that he had filed the rectification application u/s 154 before A.O. and waited for its outcome, is not acceptable as filing of appeal and filing of rectification application are two separate legal processes and it cannot prevent appellant to file the appeal in time. 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 taxmann.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 Page 4 of 7 is treated as dismissed u/s. 250 r.w.s.251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed.
In the end, the present appeal is dismissed.” 3.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal on the ground of delayed filing. In coming to such a conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken into account that the assessment-order was passed by AO on 14.11.2019 and the date of service of assessment-order was 26.11.2019, therefore the appeal before him was required to be filed within 30 days from 26.11.2019.
That means, according to Ld. CIT(A), the last date for filing appeal was 26.12.2019 whereas the assessee filed appeal to him on 02.03.2021 after expiry of statutory time-period. In this regard, Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee made a factual and cogent submission to Ld. CIT(A) that against assessment-order passed by AO, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 to the very same AO but ultimately finding no outcome from AO, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) after lapse of time. Further, the assessee also explained to CIT(A) that there was Covid-19 pandemic from 15.03.2020 onwards. Ld. AR submitted that the reasoning explained by assessee to CIT(A) was “sufficient” and the CIT(A) ought to have condoned delay.
3.2 Ld. DR for revenue could not controvert these submissions of Ld. AR.
3.3 After a careful consideration, we are of the view that when the assessee was pursuing alternate remedy of rectification u/s 154 against assessment-order, there was no willful attempt of assessee to avoid the filing
Page 5 of 7 of appeal to CIT(A) in time. Furthermore, out of total period from 26.12.2019 to 02.03.2021, the substantial period of 15.03.2020 to 02.03.2021 was during Covid-19 pandemic and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also granted extension in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 read with Misc.
Applications for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under all laws. Therefore, considering the entire conspectus of matter, the CIT(A) ought to have judiciously considered the reasoning explained by assessee. We find that section 249(3) empowers the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. Similarly, the section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Therefore, taking a judicious note of the submissions made by assessee to CIT(A) in the light of provisions of section 249(3) r.w.s. 253(5) of the Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay occurred at the stage of filing first-appeal before CIT(A).
4. Since we have condoned the delay in filing first-appeal, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall
Page 6 of 7 give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 23/12/2025