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 10.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18, whereby, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine on account of limitation.
Shri V. Rajkumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that there was a delay of 1790 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The Id. Counsel contended that the CIT(A), without considering the assessee’s application for condonation of delay, dismissed the appeal by referring to reasons pertaining to same other appeal for another assessment year i.e. AY 2023-24. Thus, the impugned order suffers from factual errors and non-consideration of reasons for delay by the First Appellate Authority.
A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has referred to reasons for delay relating to assessment year 2023-24, whereas the appeal under consideration pertains to A.Y. 2017-18. Further, the reasons for condonation as reproduced in the impugned order refers to assessment order dated 04.03.2025, whereas, in the case of assessee the date of assessment order is 02.12.2019. Even the reasons reproduced in impugned order are different from the reasons given by assessee for condonation of delay. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind while adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay.
The ld. Counsel further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was on account of inadvertent error on the part of the advocate to whom assessee had handed over appeal papers for filing appeal. It was stated that all relevant documents were handed over to the counsel well within time. In support, affidavit of Shri Mohd. Shair Ullah, Advocate, and the assessee were filed before the CIT(A). A copy of said affidavits is placed before the Bench at page 11 and 13 of the paper book, respectively.
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 derive. 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.
Thus, in light of the law explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court qua condonation of delay and the reason explained by the assesee/appellant causing delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the delay of 1790 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. Considering entire facts of the case and in interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits, in accordance with law.
The assessee, upon service of such notice shall respond to the same, without fail
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.