AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 06.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)for A.Y . 2010-11 arising out of the order of the penalty order dated 23.3.2022 passe d u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal o f the assessee on account of limitatio n. However, the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT( A) that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal, but the ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanatio n given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficie nt cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.Therefore, Ld. AR for the asse ssee requested to condone the delay of 1211 days and remit back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giv ing adequate opportunity of being he ard to the assessee.
Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and sub mitted that the no sufficient cause has been attrib uted to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference.
We have heard t both the parties and perused the material availab le on reco rd. We noticed that the Hon'b le Supreme Court in the case of C ollector, 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 t hrown 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.”
It is an admitted fact that the delay of 1211 days was no t condoned by the ld. C IT(A) and thus the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being not admitted by the ld. C IT(A).
We now proceed to extract the explanation seeking condonation of delay before the first appellate author ity which find mentions in para 4, as under:
“The ass essee is illiterate s uper senior citizen and is not familiar wi th i nte rnet and was not aware that penalty orders have been passed agai nst him. Under these circumstances, your honour is requested t o condone t he dela y i n filing the appeal. ”
It is settled law that the te chnicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinio n, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contr ary 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 cir cumstances 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 before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. For these reaso ns, the impugned appellate order is set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to condone the de lay in dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue s afresh, after giv ing effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. 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 appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.