Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The assessee claimed the delay was due to persistent technical glitches on the income-tax portal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. The Tribunal noted a delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the reasons for delay explained in Form 35 and without providing an opportunity for hearing. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal to be heard on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the assessee's explanation for the delay and without providing an opportunity to be heard? Whether the delay in filing the appeal was due to "sufficient cause"?
Sections Cited
250, 249(3), 143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 28.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds are reproduced below:
“1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering that the appellant had already explained the cause of 2 Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan
delay in Form 35 and supported the same with grievance evidence of persistent portal malfunction.
The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that no condonation application was filed when the reason for delay was explicitly stated in Form 35 and on record of the Department
3 The learned CIT(A), NFAC violated Section 250(1) and 250(6) of the Act by failing to issue any notice or provide an opportunity to explain the alleged delay before dismissing the appeal, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
The learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that the delay arose due to system errors on the Department's own portal, a cause beyond the appellant's control, which constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act.
The learned CIT(A), NFAC issued hearing notices under Section 250 and thereby treated the appeal as admitted. Subsequent dismissal on limitation grounds without show cause is arbitrary and void.
The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in recording inconsistent findings regarding the period of delay and in ignoring evidence filed in response to notices.
7 The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC is contrary to the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector v. Katiji (167 ITR 471), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (295 ITR 466), and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay).
The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, or alternatively, decide the appeal on merits in the interest of justice.”
At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 21 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an 3 Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan
application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan, the appellant above-named, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
That the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was passed on 29.04.2021. 2. That due to persistent technical glitches on the new income-tax portal, the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period. Multiple grievance tickets were raised between June and December 2021; the Department's response dated 04.04.2022 confirms the existence of such issues.
That the appeal was successfully filed on 20.09.2021, and the reason for delay was clearly mentioned in Form 35, para 11. Hence, the explanation was already on record and not considered by the learned CIT(A), NFAC.
That no notice or opportunity was provided by the CIT(A) regarding limitation; the order dismissing the appeal without such notice is arbitrary.
I submit that the delay, if any, was neither deliberate nor negligent, but due to circumstances beyond my control. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits.
After hearing the parties and 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 where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of 4 Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan
non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance.
Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
At the very outset, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) the same was not filed within limitation in this regard Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in its order that assessee had neither made request or nor submitted any justification to demonstrate the sufficient cause. Whereas in this regard Ld. AR submitted that in Form No. 35, the assessee had mentioned the reasons for delay.
After having gone through the facts of the present case and hearing the parties, we found that assessee had not filed any separate application along with the details and reasons for seeking condonation of delay, therefore Bench is of the view that in these circumstances matter be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file appropriate application mentioning the 5 Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan
reasons for seeking condonation of delay and also supported by affidavit and documents if any and thereafter Ld. CIT(A) shall decided the said application on merits in accordance with law with these directions we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back accordingly. Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
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 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2026 (PRABHASH SHANKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 18/02/2026
6 Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु"बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित ////
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.