AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.03.2026 of Id. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation as the Id. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal, against the penalty order dated 21.07.2025.
Facts in brief as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the case of the assessee was selected under CASS by issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.06.2024 which was allegedly served upon the assessee but the assessee failed to file reply to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceeding u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act were initiated by issuing a show-cause notice dated 13.01.2025, despite assessee explaining the reasons for non-compliance and subsequent participating in the proceedings. The Id. Assessing Officer has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same being barred by limitation and has refused to condone the delay of 118 days.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:
> 1. That Id. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case and without condoning the delay in filing of appeal for the reason which was beyond the control of the assessee is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
> 2. Appellant has every right to make, add, delete, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
We have heard the Id. AR and the Id. DR. The Id. AR, at the very outset, would submit that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay as mentioned in Form 35 filed before the Id. CIT(A) and reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order. However, the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the ends of justice would be met if the delay is condoned and the assessee is afforded an effective opportunity of hearing and the matter may be restored to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merit.
The Id. DR, on the other hand, would submit that the assessee has failed to explain the delay of 118 days and the appeal has been rightly dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay are reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order extracted below as under:
"No physical copy of penalty order was served. AR of the assessee only came to know the penalty order when outstanding demand was checked for payment on e-portal. Delay in filing of appeal is unintentional. Detailed submissions shall be filed at the time of hearing."
We have noticed that nothing contrary to the reasons explained by the assessee/appellant for the delay has been brought on record to our notice. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
It is an admitted fact that the delay of 118 days was not condoned by the Id. CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being not admitted by the Id. CIT(A).
It is 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 opinion, 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 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 of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee before the Id. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order is set aside. Hence, we deem it expedient to condone the delay in dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh, after giving effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Id. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.