AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 06.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2023-24.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) had issued notice to the assessee on 19.11.2025. Thereafter, on 21.11.2025 a deficiency letter was issued to the assessee which was duly responded by the assessee. No further notice was issued by the CIT(A) and appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Shivani Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. He submitted that admittedly there was delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had explained the reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts dismissed appeal of assessee in limine without condoning the delay. The ld. AR submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits, if an opportunity is granted, the assessee would be able to show merits in his case.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department opposed the appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The First Appellate Authority has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation taking a pedantic view of limitation provisions. From perusal of impugned order, it emanate that principles of natural justice have also been violated. The assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present his case.
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.
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 drive. 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.
Considering the reasons given by the assessee, the delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority is condoned. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh 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 appeal of assessee is allowed.