AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):
The appeal is preferred by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 20.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20 wherein the appeal has been dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1.The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal solely on account of delay without appreciating that the underlying assessment proceedings were void ab initio, having been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without pecuniary OR legal jurisdiction, contrary to CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 and the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2022; further, the proceedings were wrongly initiated u/s 148 despite the basis being a search conducted prior to 01.04.2021, which, if at all, could only be covered u/s 153C. The dismissal without adjudication on such fundamental jurisdictional defects has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and the appeal deserves to be heard on merits.
2.The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case, inasmuch as the additions made by the Ld. AO are patently unjustified treating the loan from M/s Aneri Fincap as unexplained money without granting opportunity of cross-examination OR appreciating supporting evidence; mechanically treating all cash deposits as unexplained income without verifying the source and ignoring corresponding withdrawals; failing to apply the settled principle of peak credit; and erroneously treating legitimate credit card payments as unexplained expenditure. The non-adjudication on these substantive grounds has vitiated the appellate order and caused grave prejudice to the assessee.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone a short delay of 58 days in filing the appeal. It is settled law that the expression "sufficient cause" in section 249(3) and section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice and not defeat meritorious cases on technicalities. The Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in Sri Suhas Suresh 3 Shet v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 96 held that even long delays deserve condonation WHARE no mala fides exist, while the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata in G D Mother Educational Society v. ACIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 667 held that bona fide error OR misunderstanding constitutes sufficient cause. The delay in the present case arose from genuine circumstances without negligence OR mala fides, and ought to have been condoned.”
We have heard the Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and Ld. AR for the assessee. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that there was delay of only 58 days and sufficient explanation was given by the assessee along with medical proof as he was suffering from heart disease during the relevant time and could not brief his CA/ accountant to file his appeal in time. It is further submitted that the petition seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit has been placed from page 7 to 25 and affidavit from 5 to 6 of the paper book along with medical documents. It is therefore submitted that the dismissal of the appeal in limine has resulted into miscarriage of justice and in the interest of justice matter be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.
Ld. DR on the other hand while relying upon the judgment of the ld. CIT(A) has submitted that the assessee/appellant has failed to show of sufficient cause for condonation of delay which has resulted into dismissal of the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record.
We have noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 In order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2.Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
In view of above, it is well settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee in that regard remained uncontroverted. On examining the impugned order, we have noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal in limine vide para no. 7 and 8 of the impugned order has made following observation extracted below as under:
“7.In light of the above, it is found that there is no merit in the reasons mentioned in Form no 35 of appeal for condonation of delay. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non-filing the appeal within due time. Delay of 58 days is unjustified for a person who is vigilant about his affairs. The appellant assessee has neglected/omitted to assert his rights of appeal in a timely manner. Hence the request for condonation of delay is rejected.
8.Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable on this issue alone. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible.”
In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid well settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the instant case is fit for condoning the delay in dispute, because the explanation given by assessee before the Id. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. In our view, the dismissal of the appeal in limine has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it is order accordingly. In these facts and circumstances justice shall be met by restoring matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh by giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee/appellant. The appellant/assessee is directed to present its case within the period of 60 days from this order without any fail on their part.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes.