Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) because it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The assessee had also been ex-parte before the CIT(A). The delay was 48 days, and an application for condonation of delay was rejected by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by liberally construing the expression "sufficient cause". The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors. and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 30.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2023-24.
From the records, we noticed that the assessee was 2. ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal. However the same was filed beyond the period of limitation (i.e delay of 48 days) and consequently an application for
we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee explained the reason for seeking condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A).
3. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that wheresubstantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non- deliberatedelay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred.In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is ofprime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth bythe Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delaywhich occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression"sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay infiling the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hencethe Bench is of the view that one more opportunity DineshbhaiRavjibhai Dobariya, Surat. be given to the assessee to represent his case beforeLd. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2025