Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal belatedly by 522 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The assessee contended that the delay was due to a mistake by their advocate. The Revenue argued that the assessee was negligent and the appeal should be dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal held that while time limits are important, substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially in cases of non-deliberate delay. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 522 days.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 522 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
154, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM.
Swashray Co-op. Housing Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Vs. Mavdi Plot Main Road, Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Panchayat Gruh, Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAAS 6458 F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19, is directed against order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide order dated 18.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 14.07.2020, u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly, by 522 days before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the assessee`s appeal on merit. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that because of the mistake of the Advocate/ tax consultant, such a delay of 522 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) occurred. The assessee handed over all A.Y 18-19 Swashray Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. the documents and papers relating to filing of the appeal to his advocate, however, his advocate kept all the papers relating to appeal in his drawer and forgot to file the appeal on time. Therefore, ld. Counsel contended that because of the mistake of the Advocate, the assessee should not be penalized, and such delay should be condoned in the interest of justice, and since the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal of the assessee, on merit, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. Counsel undertakes the responsibility to submit the relevant documents and evidences before the ld. CIT(A) on time.
On the other hand, the learned Senior DR for the revenue supported the orders of the Ld CIT(A) and stated that ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of late filing the appeal before him. Since the assessee is negligent and sleeps over his rights, therefore those assessees, who do not take care to file the appeal on time, should not be allowed lenient approach and mercy to condone the delay, the law aids those who are vigilant and not those peoples who sleep over their rights, therefore appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties. No doubt, the appeal should have been filed by the assessee on time. It should be noted that the legislature has provided time limits for certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have to be observed. It is compliance requirements imposed by law in the interest of proper regulation of the Act. I am of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, I have to do justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others , reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes .... A.Y 18-19 Swashray Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. “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 non- deliberate delay.” When I weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. In the assesse’s case under consideration, the delay happened because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee and on account of mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised, for that reliance is also placed on the decision of I.T.A.T., 'C' Bench, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT [ITA Nos.2519 to 2521/Kol/2017, order dated 18.04.2018], wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under:
"3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal, the assessees immediately took steps to file the appeals. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was occurred because of the wrong advice of the Tax Professional for which assessees cannot be penalized. For the ends of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
On professional advice, I note that the Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that in the matter of condonation of delay, pragmatic and liberal approach should be taken. I note that appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay and the appeal should be ordinarily decided on merits. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered this aspect of condonation of delay in case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (283 ITR 149) and held that...
The position in law is well settled that an assessee should be granted due relief where it is due without standing on technicalities and the revenue must bear the established legal position in mind while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay. It is necessary that liberal approach is adopted in such a matter so as to ensure that substantive rights are not defeated on the basis of technicalities or limitation.
A.Y 18-19 Swashray Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd.