Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to an unexplained delay of 1168 days in filing the appeal. The assessee did not provide any submissions to explain the delay or respond to notices. The assessee filed the first appeal on 23.07.2019 against an intimation dated 10.03.2016, while the limitation period for filing an appeal before the CIT(A) is 30 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technical aberrations and that provisions relating to condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay and that it was not clear whether the assessee had properly applied for condonation. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee a last opportunity to make submissions before the first appellate authority.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the principles of natural justice and liberally interpreting the provisions for condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
249(2), 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH,
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M):
1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Kanpur- 2/10106/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal on the ground of un-explained delay of 1168 days.
2. None responds for the appellant assessee’s Respondent revenue is represented by Ld. Sr. DR.
Krish Utpadan Mandi Samiti 3. At the very outset, learned representative for the respondent revenue has drawn the attention of the Tribunal that assessee neither made submissions to explain the delay of 1168 days in filing appeal before the first appellate authority nor responded to the notices issued by it. Supported the impugned order and prayed to dismiss assessee’s appeal.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal on 23.07.2019 against the intimation dated 10.03.2016. 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 appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 1168 days.
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 provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally.
The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned Krish Utpadan Mandi Samiti authorities and to advance the cause of justice. It appears from the perusal of the ground no.3 raised in the appeal before this tribunal that the appellant has specifically pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting condonation of delay of 1168 days from the date of intimation. It is however not clear as to whether the assessee moved an application before the Ld. CIT(A) or raised any grounds of condonation of delay in form no. 35, as the same is not on the record. In such circumstances and in the interest of the justice, we deem it just to afford last opportunity to the assessee to make his submissions before the first appellate authority in respect of the delay caused in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A). The first appellate authority shall pass order a fresh on assessee’s delay condonation application, keeping the afore stated observations in view. Needless to say that the first appellant authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 11.04.2022 is set aside.
Order pronounced in open court today on 27.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Agra; Dated 27/03/2025 Rahul, LDC