RAJIV PRATAP JOSHI,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), KALYAN, THANE

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2013- 14/10313436 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the

2 ITA no. 3056/MUM/2024 Rajiv Pratap Joshi Assessment year [A.Y.] 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the same. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has informed that this appeal was also filed by a delay of 02 days and requested to condone the same. He has further submitted in respect of the impugned order that learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 45 days, despite bonafide cause of non receipt of any notice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay and learned CIT(A) be directed to decide the case on merit. 3. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard the learned representatives for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The delay of two days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 6. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal on 31.01.2024 before learned CIT(A) against the penalty order dated 23.09.2022 passed u/s. 271F of the Act, which was communicated to the appellant on 20.11.2013. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing the same. 7. The reason shown by the assessee is that the penalty order was not received on assessee’s e-mail ID. It was only on 20.11.2023, the said order could be traced on the portal. Thereafter assessee’s CA was informed and after completing

3 ITA no. 3056/MUM/2024 Rajiv Pratap Joshi certain formalities, the appeal before learned CIT(A) could be filed on 31.01.2024. 8. Learned CIT(A) has observed that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the first appeal before him. 9. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 45 days. 10. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. 11. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 45 days. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.03.2024 is set aside. The delay in filing the first