AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeals of the assessee are directed against orders dated 10.02.2026 passed by ld. C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi u/s 250 of the Act wherein the appeal has been dismissed while refusing the condonation of delay of 256 days in quantum proceedings as well in the penalty proceeding s u/s 270A of the Act against the assessment o rder dated 04.11 .2024.
By this commo n order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 2322 & 2323/Del/2026 as the appellant is the same and proceedings are inter-related being q uantum proceeding and subseque nt penalty proceedings emanating from the main quantum order subje ct matter of ITA No. 2322/Del/2026, hence, we propose to decide both the appeals by this common order in order to avoid the multip licity of proceedings.
Aggrieved by the Asse ssment O rder, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi alongw ith request to condone the delay of 256 days in quantum ap peal in ITA No.2322/Del/2026. However, Ld. CIT(A) w as not satisfied with the explanation given for above said delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has faile d to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed on this account.
Aggrieved by the impug ned order, the assesse e is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR at the very outset, submitted that the ld . CIT(A) has refused to cond one the delay in filing the appeal and despite sufficie nt cause being show n by the assessee which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay may be condoned and the matter be restored to ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afre sh. Per contra, ld. DR, on the other hand, w hile supporting the order of the ld . CIT(A) has stated that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay and thus the appeal has rightly been dismissed by the CIT(A), which does no t need any inter ference.
We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the rival submissions available on record. T he ld . AR submitted before us that inadvertently co ndonation of delay application could not be filed before the ld. CIT(A) who has refused to condone the delay despite being sufficie nt cause for condoning the delay. It is submitted that the delay occurred due to some family tragedy. The assessee co uld not approach his CA for filing the appeal as the ne cessary documents including the order copy is misplaced somewhere by him.
The ld. DR on the other hand would submit that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficie nt cause for condonation of delay and the ld. CIT(A) has r ightly dismissed the appeal in quantum proceedings as well as in penalty proceedings.
We have not iced that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Co llector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation o f delay as under:
“The Legislatur e has c onferred t he power to co ndone dela y by enacti ng section 51 o f the Limitati on Act of 1963 in order to enabl e the courts to do substantial justice t o parti es by disposi ng of matters on de merits”. The expr essi on “sufficient caus e” empl oyed by t he Legisla ture is ad equately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law i n a meani ngful ma nner which subserves the ends of j usti ce t hat bei ng the life-purpose of t he existence of the i nstituti on of courts . It is co mmon kno wledge that this court has been maki ng of j ustifiably liberal appr oac h i n matters i nstituted i n t his court. B ut the message do es not appear to have perc olated down to all the other courts in the hi erarc hy. And such a liberal approac h is adopted o n pri nciple as it is realized t hat:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant d oes not stand to bene fit by lodgi ng an appeal late.
2.Refusi ng to condo ne delay can result i n a meritori ous matt er bei ng thrown out at the ver y thr eshol d and c ause of j ustice bei ng defeat ed. As against this, whe n delay is co ndoned, the hi ghest tha t c an 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 op inion, 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 mad e by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In the given facts and cir cumstances and in view of the aforesaid well se ttled 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 seeking condonation of delay was sufficie nt and justified . In our view , dismissal of the appeal against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order against the quantum proceeding is set aside. It is noted that the assessment order was also passed u/s 147 of the Act without effective representation by the assessee, hence, we deem it expedient to re store the matter in the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunities of he aring to the assessee. Since the appellate order against the quantum proceedings has been set aside and matter has been remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudicatio n, as aforesaid, the consequent penalty appeal in IT A No. 2323/Del/2026 against the penalty proceedings is also stand set aside, in the aforesaid manner. T he assessee/appellant is dire cted to pre sent its case within 60 days o f passing of this o rder before the Ld. CIT( A).
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical pur pose, in the afor esaid manner.