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 20.01.2026 and 10.02.2026 passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Act wherein in the quantum proceedings, the appeal was d ismissed on acco unt of refusal to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal, whereas, in the penalty proceedings, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was also confirmed.
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 o f delay and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, ld. AR for the assessee requested to condone the delay of 137 days and remit back the issue s to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjud ication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Per contra, ld. DR re lied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been attributed to the asse ssee 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 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 Collector, Land Acquisitio n 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 co urt 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, when 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 124 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 me ntio ns in para 8 .1 at page 23, extracted below as under:
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 circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are o f the co nsidered view that it w as a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanatio n given by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. For these reasons, the imp ugned appellate order is set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. C IT(A). Since, the assessme nt order is ex-parte u/s 147 r .w .s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, therefore ends of justice requires that assessee be given an effective opportunity of hear ing for completing assessment u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. lower authorities. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after affording and effective opportunities of hear ing to the assessee who shall submit the material/submissions within a period of 60 days of p assing of this order.
Since, the quantum appeal in ITA No. 2561/Del/2026 has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fre sh adjudicatio n, the penalty appeal in ITA No. 2562/Del/2026 cannot be sustained at this stage. Accordingly, the impug ned order dated 20.01.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjud ication in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.