AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant batch of six appeals pertains to the single assessees herein namely, Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
| Sl. No. | ITA Nos. | A.Y. | Appellant | Respondent | Order passed against | Proceedings u/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | 5619 & 5622/Del/2026 | 2019-20 & 2020-21 | Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. | ITO | CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 13.03.2026 | 147/144 |
| 3-4 | 5620 & 5624/Del/2026 | 2019-20 & 2020-21 | Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. | ITO | CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 13.03.2026 | 272AAC(1) |
| 5-6 | 5621 & 5623/Del/2026 | 2019-20 & 2020-21 | Maasugarvnita Pvt. Ltd. | ITO | CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 Dated: 13.03.2026 | 270A |
Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi alongwith request to condone the delay of 268 days (in ITA Nos. 5619 & 5622/Del/2026), 183 days (in ITA Nos. 5623 & 5624/Del/2026) and 182 days (in ITA No. 5620 & 5621/Del/2026). The Id. CIT(A) however was not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed in limine.
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 a 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."
It is an admitted fact that the assessment order subject matter of appeal ITA Nos. 5619 & 5622/Del/2026, was best judgment assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act as the assessee failed to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The appeals against the quantum proceedings as well as against penalty proceedings have been dismissed in limine as the Id. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 268 days (in ITA Nos. 5619 & 5622/Del/2026), 183 days (in ITA Nos. 5623 & 5624/Del/2026) and 182 days (in ITA No. 5620 & 5621/Del/2026) on the ground that the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory.
We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate authority which find mentions in para 3 at page 5 (ITA No. 5619/Del/2026), as under:
That Ld AO passed the order on dated 26.03.2025 under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act. Assessee did not receive the impugned order passed on dated 26.03.2025. The said order was uploaded on income tax-e portal only.
In our appeal, the limitation of filing appeal expired on dt.26.04.2025. Thus, there is a delay of 270 days in filing of the said appeal, calculated from dt.26.04.2025 which is being prayed for condonation of delay. The Counsel of the assessee had carefully kept the papers in file for filing an appeal before CIT Appeals Wherein, he forgot to file the same before CIT Appeals on time for challenging the same for further appeal proceedings. The aforesaid inaction for the pendency of appeal not having been filed and came to knowledge on dt. 06.01.2026 wherein, penalty was imposed on 11.04.2025. At that time, it was revealed that the appeal challenging the order dt.26.03.2025 has not been filed and whereupon the case papers namely the impugned order had been given to the Ld Consultant for preparation and filing of appeal.
On dt 06.01.2026 onward again the efforts were undertaken to file the appeal and the case papers were given to the counsel for preparing and filing the appeal before Ld CIT Appeals. The humble prayer is that the aforesaid delay is unintentional and inadvertent mistake and this is the cause wherein, the humble pleading is for condoning the delay attributable to the aforesaid reasons as the assessee would suffer irreparable losses. Since, even there is a case prima facie wherein assessee is likely to succeed on the interpretation of the principles of law in the interest of justice. Thus under the afore said facts and circumstances and nature of case, the humble prayer is for condoning the delay and granting the opportunity for hearing the case in the interest of substantial justice for decision in accordance with law.
It is 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.
In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee to the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. Dismissal of the appeal in limine against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, in our opinion 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 147/144 of the Act without effective representation by the assessee, hence, we deem it expedient to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same after giving effective opportunities of hearing. Since the appellate order against the quantum proceedings has been set aside, the subsequent penalty proceedings also stands set aside. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 5619 to 5624/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose.