SRI AJAY KUMAR MISHRA,BADAMBA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), CUTTACK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The issue of granting credit for prepaid taxes was restored to the AO for readjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against a rectification order for not granting credit for prepaid taxes as per the 26AS statement. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 1006 days, attributing it to ignorance of law and wrong advice.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the issue of prepaid tax credit should be restored to the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Somanath Sahoo, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.04.2022 passed in DIN & Order No.:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1042758677(1) for the assessment year 2014-2015.
It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee had filed appeal against the rectification order passed by the AO u/s.154 of the Act, dated 04.07.2017, insofar as the credit for prepaid taxes has not been granted to the assessee as per the 26AS statement in the case of the assessee. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 1006 days. It was the submission that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and wrong advice given by the counsel. It was the submission that in any case the issue was only to give prepaid taxes and the evidence was also before AO. It was the submission that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned before the ld.CIT(A). It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of AO for verification of allowing the credit of the prepaid taxes.
In reply, ld. Sr.DR submitted that 26AS statement, which has been produced before the Tribunal, is a fresh evidence, which should not be considered. It was, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is not liable to be condoned and ignorance of law is not a ground for condonation of delay.
We have considered the rival submissions. It is also well-known fact that if the technicality is pitted against substantial justice, the technicality must step back and substantial justice should prevail, we feel that the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is liable to be condoned.
Coming to the powers of the ITAT in respect of condonation of delay, a perusal of the provisions of Section 253(5) of the Act, there is a specific provision that the Tribunal can admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. As mentioned earlier, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by substantial cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) stands condoned.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026