Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) after a delay of 32 days. The reason provided for the delay was technical difficulties in uploading the appeal and issues with Aadhaar verification and bank EVC, followed by obtaining a DSC. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, rejecting the condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice cannot be denied on technical grounds and that the procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice. The Tribunal found the delay of 32 days to be meagre and deemed it just and proper to condone it, considering the explanation provided by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 32 days in filing the first appeal? Whether dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, while also proceeding to decide on merits, is in accordance with law?
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 144, 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 25.11.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT(appeals)-1, AGRA/10467/2018-19 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 32 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 32 days in filing the first appeal and in passing impugned order ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity to assessee.
None has responded on behalf of the appellant/assessee. 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 16.02.2019 against the assessment order dated 10.12.2018 passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act, which is stated to have been served on 15.12.2018. 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 32 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 had assigned following reason before the first appellate authority for impugned delay of 32 days in filing the first appeal : "The appeal should have been filed on or before 15.01.2019. However, the appellant did try to upload the appeal, but could not do so as the same could not be verified by either AADHAR OTP or bank EVC. The appellant did try to get correction in AADHAR and also updated mobile number in bank, but still same did not work. Ultimately, the appellant got DSC issued and is filing appeal through 2 | P a g e
DSC. The process took time and delay occurred. It is submitted that delay was wholly un intentional and beyond the control of appellant. It is therefore, requested that delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned."
Learned CIT(A) was, however, not satisfied with the reasons assigned for condonation of 32 days’ delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. It is strange to note that Ld. CIT(Appeals) specifically ordered that the appeal is not admitted and dismissed on the ground of delay. However, ld. CIT(Appeals) further proceeded to decide the appeal on merits, though not in accordance with the true spirit of section 250(6) of the Act.
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 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 32 days in filing the first appeal.
3 | P a g e
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 01.04.2025 *aks/-