Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was delayed by 273 days. The assessee attributed the delay to business closure and hospitalization of its director due to COVID-19. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities like limitation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents and evidence before the lower authorities.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication considering the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
Section 253 of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
Assessee represented by Shri P.K. Mishra and Shri Narahari Swain, A.Rs. Department represented by Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10169897 dated 10/01/2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14.
Shri P.K. Mishra with Shri Narahari Swain, ld. A.Rs. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld. CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 273 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. CIT- DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the Satyasai Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs ITO delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has not produced sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer and before the ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that there was an inordinate delay of 6 years and 6 months in filing this appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then a cost should be imposed.
In rejoinder submission, the ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was caused due to the fact that business unit of the assessee company was closed and the notice could not be served on the assessee company. The assessee company was totally unaware about the impugned proceedings initiated and order passed against it. When the recovery proceeding was initiated then the assessee company came to know about passing of assessment order. It was the submission that the director of the assessee company Satyasai Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs ITO suffered from corona and were hospitalised three times because of post corona side effect. The delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is not intentional and deliberate and the delay of 2327 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay and without considering the merit of the case. 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 before the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. Assessing Officer. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Satyasai Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs ITO Thousand only) on the assessee, as admitted by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the above- mentioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2026.