AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
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 25.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2016-17, dismissing appeal of assessee in limine on account of limitation.
Ms. Sanju Kumari, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) with the delay of 97 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay citing reasons that resulted in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) taking a hyper technical view held that the assessee has not been able to discharge onus of ‘sufficient cause’ resulting in delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of assessee in limine without condoning delay. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and if an opportunity is allowed the assessee would present her case before the CIT(A).
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. Undisputedly, appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was time barred by 97 days, the assessee has furnished reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) taking a pedantic approach has dismissed appeal of assessee in limine without condoning delay.
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.
After examining the reasons given by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the reasons appear to be bonafide, hence, the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) is condone. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.