SYED REHAN HAIDER,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 63(1), DELHI

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 30.11.2023, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order (A.Y.2017-18) dated 26.03.2023. The said appeal was time barred by 117 days, the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The said application was further supported by an affidavit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The ld. AR submitted that before the CIT(A), the assessee had explained the reason for delay in filing of appeal. He pointed that the assessment order was passed on 26.03.2023. Before passing of assessment order the assessee had gone abroad on 29.01.2023 and had returned to India on 27.04.2023. Thereafter, the assessee came to know about passing of the assessment order. The assessee was unable to access the relevant information which formed basis of addition. The assessee visited the Department multiple times to collect the relevant information. By the time the assessee could collect the relevant documents and approach the counsel for filing of appeal, there was delay of 117 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits, if an opportunity is granted to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A), and present his case, the assessee would succeed in appeal. 4. Per contra, Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR, representing the Department, vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that there was delay of 117 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay citing reasons causing delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) taking a hyper technical view has (A.Y.2017-18) dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of limitation. It is a well settled law that acceptance of reasons for condonation of delay is a rule and refusal an exception. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported as 2002 SCC (3) 195 has held: “12…….In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine- like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way. [Emphasized by us] 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, has held that liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the applications for condonation delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that “every days delay must be explained” does not me that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational commonsense and in a pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are