AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the assessee is dir ected against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 10.10.2025 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein the appeal has been dismissed in limine while refusing condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the appeal by the assessee/appellant.
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice because the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal for hearing by refusing to condone the delay of only 59 days for which a satisfactory explanation was made by the assessee as assessee could not file the appeal on time because o f the heart problem suffered by him on 14.04.2025 wherein assessee was also hospitalized and medical docume nts were also attached . It is further submitted that assessee was advised to complete bed rest and could not do his ordinary work for two months. It is further submitted that because of the above reason, the assessee could not submit the necessary document to his CA and advocate who without wasting any time has filed the appeal. It is there fore sub mitted that the impug ned order be set aside and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merit.
The ld. DR on the other hand while relying the ord er of the ld. CIT(A) would submit that the impugned or der is legally justified however left it to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the condonation of de lay in the larger interest of justice.
We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the record. We have no ticed that the Hon'ble Sup reme Court in the case of Co llector, 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 la w in a meani ngful manner whic h sub-s erves 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 benefit 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, 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.”
In view of above, it is well 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 op inion, 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 mad e by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
We have noted that the reason for seeking condo natio n of delay has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in para 2.2 and also discussed above by us. T he said reason in all probabilities were sufficient for condonation of delay and the approach of the ld. CIT(A) has been hyper technical. We canno t forget that the procedures are handmade of justice and whenever the quasi judicial author ities are required to do justice, the technicalities would no t come in the w ay. While following the judgeme nt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred (supra), we are satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and the delay in the filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is accordingly condoned. The matter is restored to the file of the ld. C IT(A) for deciding afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the ne cessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT( A) w ithin the period of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.