PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-22(1), KOLKATA

I notice at the outset from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s order that he has refused to condone two years and two months’ delay in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest attributing reasons thereof to prolonged illness. The Revenue’s case during the course of hearing before me is that the assessee’s condonation filed before the CIT(A) did not explain the above noted delay. I proceed in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer had added assessee’s long term capital gains of ₹28,74,051/- u/s 50C of the Act without making statutory reference to the DVO as affirmed in the lower appellate order. As against this the impugned two years and two months’ delay is only procedural in nature. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision COLLECTOR, Prasanta Kr. Ghosal Vs. ITO Wd-22(1), Kol Page 2 LAND ACQUISITION VS. Mst. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settled the law long back that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects.