Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with an approximate 30-day delay, which was attributed to non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order in physical mode, late retrieval from the e-filing portal in January 2025, and family medical exigencies. The Ld. CIT(A) had previously rejected the assessee's appeal *in limine* due to a much longer delay (1,637 days according to CIT(A)), stating no affidavit or supporting evidence was furnished for condonation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause. It further set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order rejecting the appeal *in limine* and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the assessee's application for condonation of delay, allowing the assessee to furnish comprehensive documents and providing an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned; Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's appeal *in limine* without proper consideration of the condonation application.
Sections Cited
Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-2018, raising following grounds:
The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal in linen. The addition made by ld. Assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT (A) - NFAC may be kindly deleted.
At the very outset, we observe that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 31.12.2024, whereas the present appeal before the Tribunal has been filed on 02.04.2025. The appeal, as per the statutory period of limitation prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), ought to have been filed on or before 02.03.2025. There is, therefore, a delay of approximately 30 days in the filing of the appeal. 2.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, drawing attention to the application for condonation of delay, submitted that the impugned order was not served upon the assessee in physical mode and was retrieved by the assessee from the e-filing portal only in January 2025, owing to certain medical exigencies in the family which prevented timely action. It was submitted that the delay was purely unintentional and occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee’s control. The Ld. Counsel further contended strong prima facie case on merits that the assessee has a, and that the cause of substantial justice ought not to be defeated by a technical default of marginal delay. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits 2.2 The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the impugned order but did not controvert the factual matrix placed on record by the assessee regarding the date of knowledge of the appellate order or the stated medical difficulties.
2.3 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The law regarding condonation of delay is well settled. The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 253(5) of the Act is to be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice, as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]. It has been emphasised that the length of delay is immaterial, provided the explanation for such delay is reasonable, bona fide, and not tainted with negligence or mala fides. The underlying principle is that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly; on the contrary, he runs the risk of forfeiting valuable rights if his cause is not entertained. 2.4 In the facts of the present case, the explanation tendered by the assessee — namely, the non-receipt of the appellate order in physical mode and the family medical circumstances that delayed retrieval of the order from the portal — appears reasonable and bona fide. The delay of about 30 days cannot be regarded as inordinate. We find no element of deliberate inaction or mala fide conduct on part of the assessee. In our considered view, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
2.5 Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (supra) and Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh [(2010) 6 SCC 786], we hold that a liberal approach should be adopted where no gross negligence or deliberate delay is established. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Coming now to the merits of the appeal, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s appeal in-limine on the ground of delay. While the assessee computed the delay at 83 days, the Ld. CIT(A) held that there was a delay of 1,637 days, observing that no affidavit or supporting evidences were furnished in support of the condonation petition.
3.1 Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect e-mail address, due to which the assessee could not respond or furnish requisite documents. It was further submitted that the assessee is now prepared to file a comprehensive condonation petition supported by affidavit and relevant documents, if afforded one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A).
3.2 Having regard to the overall circumstances and the submissions advanced, we are of the view that the cause of substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (supra) has held that where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
3.3 In the present case, the assessee has demonstrated bona fide intent and willingness to comply with procedural requirements if afforded an opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the assessee’s application for condonation of delay, and thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall afford due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking and reasoned order after verifying the factual matrix and evidences furnished.
In the result, the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the appeal in limine is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and other grounds are only rendered academic.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.