Ekam Constructors Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ‘CIT(A)’] dated 30.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20.

Shri Mukesh Garg, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 31 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal is time bared and the assessee has not been able to explain ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing of appeal. The Id. Counsel submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and if an opportunity is allowed to the assessee to explain the case on merits, the addition would be deleted.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department opposed the appeal. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has not been able to explain ‘sufficient cause’ for delay of filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. DR supported the impugned order in dismissing appeal of assessee on the ground of limitation.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. The assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 31 days. The assessee has given reasons for delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate on the part of the assessee. The reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) appears to be bonafide.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner 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.

In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 the Hon’ble Courthas 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.

The delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority is condoned. The appeal is restored back 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 purposes.