SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 500 days, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed as barred by limitation due to a delay of 500 days. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the penalty order until their consultant informed them.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) should be condoned to allow for adjudication on merits, considering the principles of substantial justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10321736 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.
Brief facts state that based on disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54 and 54F amounting to Rs.12,22,705/- made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022, the Assessing Officer levied penalty amounting to Rs.2,51,878/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.09.2022.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable.
We have perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue.
5. It appears from the perusal of record that the appellant assigned the reason for condonation of 500 days’ delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) that the assessee was not aware about the penalty order passed and it came to his notice through his consultant who suggested to file the appeal against the said penalty order. The learned CIT(Appeals), however, disbelieving the aforesaid reasons for delay, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
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 2 | P a g e interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed.
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 500 days. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2024. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellate authority stands condoned and the matter is restored back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say, the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 22.11.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2025.
More judgments on Section 54
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs Manan Arati Patel, AhmedabadITA 923/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
