Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a first appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed as barred by limitation due to a delay of 17 days. The assessee had sought condonation of this delay, citing a lapse on the part of their previous counsel. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation application.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technical aberrations and the object of procedural rules is to advance justice. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the meager delay of 17 days.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation without condoning a delay of 17 days, considering the reason provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 144, 144B, 249(2), 249(3)
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 14.11.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10244632 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) has dismissed assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation by rejecting the prayer of the assessee for condonation of 17 days’ delay.
The aforesaid appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to many other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of only 17 days in filing the first appeal.
None has responded on behalf of the appellant/assessee. However, an adjournment application was brought on record, which was rejected. We have perused the records and heard learned Departmental representative for the Revenue.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 25.04.2023 against the order of Assessing Officer dated 10.03.2023 passed u/s. 147/144/144B of the Act.
The limitation for filing appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. Accordingly, the first appeal filed by the appellant/assessee was delayed by 17 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. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the assessee has assigned the reason for impugned delay of 17 days in filing the first appeal due to lapse on the part of assessee’s previous consel, Sh. Dilip Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Learned CIT(A) was, however, not satisfied with the reasons assigned for condonation of 17 days’ delay and 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 2 | P a g e party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any 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 meagre delay of 17 days in filing the first appeal.
In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellate authority stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for passing order 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025.