Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which had dismissed the assessee's first appeal summarily due to a 6-day delay, attributing it to Diwali holidays. The original assessment order, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, had disallowed a deduction claimed by the assessee under section 57.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities as per the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the deduction claim, considering the subsequent submission of account confirmations and correct PAN details by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned, and whether the disallowance of deduction under section 57 warrants a fresh adjudication by the AO.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B, 57
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.723/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21
Ashok Kumar Jain 501, Pushpratna Shreepati, 10 Dilpasand Colony | बनाम/ Vs. | DCIT 1(1) Indore (Assessee/Appellant) | (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABTPJ1306N Assessee by | Shri Ranjan Agrawal, AR Revenue by | Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing | 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement | 06.02.2026
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department ["AO"] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for Assessment-Year ["AY"] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
- 2. Although the Ld. AR for assessee moved an application seeking adjournment but at the hearing, Ld. AR requested to withdraw the same to which the Ld. DR for revenue did not have any objection. Accordingly, the adjournment is not required by parties. The hearing of case is proceeded. - 3. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the impugned order of first-appeal passed wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay occurred in filing of first-appeal before him and thereby dismissed asessee's appeal summarily in a few lines. However, Ld. AR submitted that there was a petty delay of only 6 days before CIT(A) and that too occurred due to a sufficient cause as explained by assessee in Form No. 35, the relevant portion of Form No. 35 is scanned below:
Appeal filing details : 14. | Whether there is delay in filing appeal | Yes 15. | If reply to 14 is Yes, enter the grounds for condonation of delay (not exceeding 500 words) | The appeal was required to be filed by 25.10.22, however, due to Diwali festival the offices were closed from 22.10.22 to 26.10.22 and therefore there was delay in filing appeal
Ld. AR requested that in the situation, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken a judicious view and accepted the assessee's explanation and admitted assessee's first-appeal. He requested this bench to accept the explanation advanced by assessee and condone the delay. Ld. DR for revenue left the issue to the wisdom of bench. Having regard to the explanation given by assessee in Form No. 35, as re-produced above, we are satisfied that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the "technical considerations" should not prevail over the cause of "substantial justice", we deem it fit to condone the small delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing first appeal is condoned.
- 5. Ld. AR next drew us to Para 4.7 of assessment-order to show that the AO has made disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 57 of the interest paid by assessee to various lenders because the assessee was not able to file a/c confirmations of lenders at that time or because there were some mismatches in PANs of the lenders due to inadvertent errors in certain alphabets of PANs. However, the assessee has subsequently collected a/c confirmations from all lenders and also compiled correct details of PANs. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this case ought to be remanded to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after considering assessee's submissions. - 6. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. - 7. In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be
caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 06.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक /Dated : 06.02.2026
Patel/Sr. PS
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) CIT (4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative
(6) Guard File
By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore