Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2021-22, which were dismissed by the Addl/JCIT(A) due to significant delays in filing (over seventeen months and 356 days, respectively). The Revenue contended that the orders of the Addl/JCIT(A) should be upheld due to these delays.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should take precedence over technicalities like limitation. It condoned the delays in filing both appeals and restored the matters to the Addl/JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the significant delay in filing appeals by the assessee should be condoned, allowing the cases to be heard on merits, or if the appeals should remain dismissed on grounds of limitation.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by None. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai both dated 02/05/2024 for the A.Y. 2019-20 and 2021-22 respectively.
None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate appeared and mentioned that he is standing proxy for the counsel who is in Kolkata and adjournment is being sought. The prayer for adjournment stands rejected and the appeal disposed off on merits.
Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that for the A.Y. 2019-20, the ld. JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of the appeal of more than seventeen months and for the A.Y. 2021-22, the appeal has been & 282/Ran/2024 M/s Sai Engineering Vs. ITO dismissed on account of delay of 356 days. It was a submission that the order of the ld. JCIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the submissions. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of the substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing of the appeals, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee but by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also know what is the mistakes that he has committed. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal in both the appeals are liable to be condoned and we do so and the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of ld. JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.