VEER PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

5.8 In the present case, the appellant furnished reason for delay in form 35, which is reproduced below:-

"The appellant was trying to file appeal against the assessment order passed. However, the facility to file appeal on the newly launched portal was not available. Further. there was technical issues while filling the appeal." Further. it is also claimed by the appellant that order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 1448 of the act passed on 30/04/2021 was received by him on 03/05/2025. The claim is not supported by any evidence. In this context, it is to be mentioned here that assessment order is passed in faceless manner and dispatched through registered email of the appellant through ITBA module immediately after passing of order and generating DIN in system. Hence, claim of the appellant is in respect of date of receipt is not tenable.

4 Veer Projects Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur The reason for delay in filling as mentioned by the appellant are not at all satisfactory and devoid of merits. Reasons are not treated as sufficient and reasonable cause for del y in filling of appeal. Hence, reason for delay in filling of appeal as per form-35 are hereby not considered.

5.9 On the given facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant has not been exercised within the stipulated time under section 249(2). Thus, this is clearly a case of lapses, which are directly the result of deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant. 5.10 This is not a case of change in law which .is beneficial to the appellant and hence the delay in seeking such remedy may be condoned in the furtherance of substantial justice. Therefore, there is no denial or destruction of a statutory right in this case, by adhering to the prescribed period of limitation as otherwise it will only lead to protract the matter endlessly and will undoubtedly render the legislative scheme and intention behind the concerned provision otiose as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) (36 G.S.T.L. 305). 5.11 Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of CIT Vs Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) (257 ITR 773) (Punjab & Haryana) has upheld the decision of Tribunal, in declining the condonation of delay of five days only, with the following ratio:- "3. The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statuto must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the of other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legistature spells out a spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now it is v settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences,"

5 Veer Projects Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 5. Because of dismissal of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, being dissatisfied, the assessee filed the present appeal for our consideration.

6. At the outset, Shri Vikram Chhabda, Authorized Representative (In short “Ld. AR”), submitted that the appeal of assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of limitation by treating the same time barred and not eligible for condonation of delay, as the assessee was unable to substantiate sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time limit in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act r.w.s. 5 of the limitation Act. Ld. AR further submitted that the order was passed by Ld. AO on 30.04.2021 and at that time the pandemic Covid-19 was on peak and the period of the delay was also covered by suo moto extension of limitation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, actually there was no delay in filing of the appeal, however, this fact could not be furnished before the First Appellate Authority. It is also submitted by the Ld. AR that due to some technical glitches in the Appellate portal of the Income Tax Department some delay had occurred. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had taken a view that assessee was failed to furnish corroborative evidence in claiming that the impugned assessment order was served on the assessee on 03.05.2021 instead of within the reasonable period when the order was passed on 30.04.2021. From the order of Ld. CIT(A) nothing is emanating that the assessee was confronted with the issue to furnish the necessary evidence to support the sufficient cause for 6 Veer Projects Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur condonation of delay. It was the submission that the assessee is able to furnish necessary submissions, evidences to contradicting the observation of Ld. CIT(A) to establish the delay occasioned was on account of unintentional and sufficient cause obstructing the assessee to file the appeal beyond the prescribed limitation time. Ld. AR further, requested to set aside the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee would be able to furnish necessary information, evidence and submissions to satisfy the authority about the condonation of delay.

7. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A), however, have not objected to the request of assessee, if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on limitation as well as on merits.