AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 10.10.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal in limine on account of limitation.
The appeal is time barred by 76 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 76 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that there was delay of 6 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee in form 35 has mentioned reason for delay in filing appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority is stated to be on medical grounds. The CIT(A) taking pedantic view rejected the reasons given by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning delay.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.
In the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, the delay of 6 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.