OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the learned first appellate authority has not condoned the delay of 820 days and 873 days respectively in filing the first appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned AR has submitted that the first appeals were instituted on 28.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 against the orders u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively.

Learned DR has submitted that no sufficient cause was shown by the assessee to condone the delay of more than two years in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. DR has accordingly supported the impugned order.

Perusal of both the impugned orders shows that common reason for the delay was raised by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018- 19 and 2019-20. For the sake of convenience, relevant part of para 5.1.1 of the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 assailed in is reiterated as under : 2 | P a g e

It is pertinent to mention that both the first appeals were instituted on 28.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 against the orders u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively. 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 the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals.

It is true that there is huge delay of 820 days and 873 days in filing each of the first appeals before ld. CIT(Appeals) respectively. We, however, take judicial notice of the fact that most of the duration of delay caused in filing first appeals before Ld. CIT (A) overlaps the period of spread of global pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken care of by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, Civil Appeal no. 6731/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14562 of 2006) vide judgment dated 20.11.2008, has held that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra ordinary situations in the ends of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Processual law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an 4 | P a g e obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice.

In the totality of facts and circumstances and going by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay seem to be sufficient. The said delay is accordingly condoned in the interest of justice.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders each dated 27.01.2025 are set aside. The delay in filing the first appeals before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned as stated above. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing orders afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.