AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28.02.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19.
Shri Princy Kumar Singhal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on ground of limitation. He submitted that admittedly there was delay of 158 days in filing 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 the assessee in limine without condoning delay. The Id. AR submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits, if an opportunity is granted, the assessee would be able to show that the addition is unsustainable.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department opposed appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the appeal was time barred by 158 days before the CIT(A), the assessee failed to give sufficient reasons for delay in filing of appeal. Hence, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the CIT(A).
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The appeal of assessee was time barred by 158 days before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee had furnished reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) taking a hyper technical rejected the reasons given by assessee and dismissed appeal of the assessee.
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.
After taking into consideration facts of the case and the law expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in dealing with explanations for condonation of delay, the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, after allowing assessee reasonable opportunity to make submissions, in accordance with law.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.