BRAJA KISHORE JENA,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 547/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 December 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, adopted a justice-oriented approach. It held that refusing to condone delay could defeat substantial justice, especially when the delay was not deliberate. The assessee's explanation for the delay was found to be not false.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) dismissing them in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee cited illiteracy, remote location, and unfamiliarity with e-assessments as reasons for the delay, along with a serious illness. The delay was substantial, 410 days for the quantum appeal and 539 days for the penalty appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine without condoning the substantial delay in filing, and whether the assessee's reasons for the delay were sufficient for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

"नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra, Adv : Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 4 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 4 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

13.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10234451 for the assessment year 2018-19 in the matter of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10238048 for the assessment year 2018-19 in the matter of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. 2. Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.546 & 547/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 )

3.

It was submitted by ld AR the ld CIT(A) has dismsised both the appeals in limine without condoning the delay although the cause for delay was furnished before him. He submitted that the assessee had sufficient reason for not filing the delay before the ld CIT(A). It was requested that as the assessee has prima facie good case, the ld CIT(A) be directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals on merits.

4. In reply, ld Sr DR opposed the request of ld AR of the assessee 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there was delay of 410 days in quantum appeal and 539 days in the penalty appeal. In the condonation petition before the ld CIT(A), it was categorically stated that the assessee is an illiterate person having education upto primary standard and living in remote village area and does not familiar with the intricacies of e- assessment introduced for the first time and even he does not know how to open the income tax portal. For the above reason, the notice of hearing issued by the ld CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee and accordingly consequential orders passed by the ld CIT(A). Even otherwise, the assessee was seriously ill and furnished medical certificate and prescription in support of the illness. The above reasons were not found favour to the ld CIT(A) and he dismissed the appeals in limine. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, (1987) 167 ITR 41 (SC), has held as under: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the 3 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.546 & 547/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 ) highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4.

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay.

5.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6.

It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

7.

It is sufficed to say that the Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice- oriented approach. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, the assessee runs a serious risk. In the instant case, the delay was attributable specifically due to the fact that the assessee is an illiterate person residing in remote area and does not have any knowledge about opening of income tax portal. He depends on his legal counsel who is staying at Cuttack. Be that it may, by delaying the appeal, the assessee would not get any benefit. We are of the view that the explanation of the assessee is not found to be false and, accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and restore the issues to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing the assessee. Should the assesse not 4 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.546 & 547/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 )

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →