DYNAMIC ENGINEERIG INDUSTRIES,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the appeal was restored for a decision on merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of one year and eight months. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding it on merit due to this delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-II”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI P.K.BANSAL
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.10.2014. Ground No. 1 relates to the not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)
After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders of the authority below I noted that the Ld. CIT(A) in this case dismissed the appeal of the assesee and did not decide the same on merit The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the order passed u/s 154 was received by the assessee on 26.9.2011 while the appeal was filed on 16.5.2013. Thus there was delay beyond 30 days the assessee moved an application for the condonation of the delay. But the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the reasons given by the assessee as the delay was one year eight months in filing the appeal. Therefore he dismissed the appeal as not being admitted.
I have perused the reasons given by the assessee in the condonation of the delay for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) In my view the Ld. CIT(A) has just rejected the application for the condonation of the delay on technical ground while the delay was neither deliberate nor on account of negligence. The Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the application did not brought that the delay was deliberately done or due to the negligence of the assessee. In my opinion when the technical consideration and the substance of the justice are pitted against each other the substance of the justice are pitted has to be preferred. In view of this I condone the delay and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction that the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal of the assessee after admitting it on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
In the result appeal filed by the assessee is statistical allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2016.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026