Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 215 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the delay was satisfactorily explained due to the assessee pursuing an alternate statutory remedy. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned when the assessee was pursuing an alternate remedy and the delay was bona fide.
Sections Cited
250, 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2024-25.
The sole ground raised by the assessee reads as under:-
The learned Addl/JCIT (A) was not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, when the appellant explained the bona fide and attempting alternate remedy.
The brief facts relevant to the issue are that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 215 days. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine, without deciding the merits of the case.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay occurred due to the reason that the assessee was pursuing an alternate remedy by filing an application u/s Himakshubhai Naginbhai Chauhan Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2024-25 - 2– 154 of the Act. It was submitted that the delay was unintentional and occurred for bona fide reasons, and that there was neither any mala fide intention nor gross negligence on the part of the assessee. It was further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay was condoned and the appeal was adjudicated on merits.
We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, and that matter ought to be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds, particularly when the delay is satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the delay has occurred due to the reason that assessee was pursuing an alternate statutory remedy, which constitutes a reasonable cause. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and considering that the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to condone the delay and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo. The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal on merits after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.01.2026 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 30/01/2026 btk Himakshubhai Naginbhai Chauhan Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2024-25 - 3–