Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as unadmitted due to a delay of 124 days in filing. The processing of the return was done under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed there was a sufficient cause for the delay, but no condonation petition was filed before the Ld. CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted the delay of 124 days and that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal. However, considering that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to give the assessee another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal dismissed due to a delay of 124 days in filing without a condonation petition should be readmitted?
Sections Cited
143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10204599 dated 28 February 2025. Return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) by CPC, Bangalore for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 8.7.2022.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as un-admited as there was a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before him. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated the fact that the processing of return u/s. 143(1) was dated 8.7.2022 and assessee filed the appeal electronically on 09.12.2022. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out from Form 25 that the date of service of processing order u/s. 143(1) was served on assessee on 8.7.2022 and thereby there is a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but when pointed out that there is no condonation petition was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as unadmitted for the reasons that condonation petition was not filed by the assessee. On this Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this is a small delay of 124 days and when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, substantial justice should be done when this was pointed to the Sr. DR he stated that once there is no condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(A), then how the Ld. CIT(A) can admit the appeal and according to him Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as un-admitted.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts. We noted that admittedly there is a delay of 124 days and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. But when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, substantial justice should prevail, hence, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to give another opportunity to assessee to canvass his case before the Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to allow one more opportunity to assessee to file condonation petition and then accordingly decide the condonation petition whether there exist any reasonable cause or not. The Ld. CIT(A), if find reasonable cause in the condonation petition, the delay in dispute be condoned and thereafter, issue on merits be decided in accordance with law.
In the result, the assesee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14.01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Date: 14-01-2026 SRBhatnagar