SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.26/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14
Satish Narayan Shukla, Mohalla Vs. Income-tax Officer, Katra Hemnath, Phaphund, Ward 1(1)(4), Auraiya. Distt. Auraiya-206122 (UP). PAN : BCWPA6111B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Avadhesh Kumar, CA Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 02.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 02.04.2025
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. 2. 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
ITA No. 26/Agr/2025
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.
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
ITA No. 26/Agr/2025
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 02.04.2025 *aks/-
